CP/M, CP/M+, PCP/M, MP/M, & Z-System

CP/M+ has quite a few features that CP/M does not. Whether it's faster
is an implementation issue; the features CAN be used to increase speed
(sometimes dramatically), but it's up to the implementor to use them
that way, it's not automatic.

The features include the ability to support larger files and devices,
the ability to do bank-switched memory, time and date stamping,
additional user interface features, ability to have a larger TPA by
bank-switching out part of the operating sytem itself, and support for
disk buffering and deblocking in the Operating system. There's more,
but that memory is over 20 years old.

MP/M and MP/M-86 are separate complete OS', they are not "add-ons" to to
the single user systems. These systems do multitask.

Right-hand Man was a competitor to my Perks program, which was basically
a sidekick-type program (Borland) for non-PC environments (although I
did a version of Perks for the PC in addition to the version for the
Zenith Z-100 systems). It contained functions like a calculator, a
small text editor, a modem program, a calendar, and ASCII code chart, etc.

Post by Leon Howell
Please excuse my inexcuseable ignorance, but could someone please tell
me *exactly* what CP/M+ & PCP/M do that CP/M 2.2 doesn't?
I know CP/M+ can handle tons of ram, but how much, and is it really
faster?
Is PCP/M really just menu driven CP/M+?
What does Z-System add?
Is MP/M an OS by it's self, or can it be added to CP/M+ or PCP/M?
Can any of these multitask?
I would also like some detailed info about T/Maker III, supposedly a
combination word proceccor, database & spreadsheet, and "Write Hand
Man" (I may not have the name write) a set of memory resident
accessories.

Salle Arobase

2003-09-10 12:46:43 UTC

Hello, Leon!

Well, you ask quite a lot of questions in one time...
I am in hurry in this cybercafe, so excuse my short answers.

Post by Leon Howell
Please excuse my inexcuseable ignorance, but could someone please
tell me *exactly* what CP/M+ & PCP/M do that CP/M 2.2 doesn't?

CP/M 2.2 is now known as the "standard" version of CP/M.
However, you can spot CP/M Old Timers when they notice that
some ways of programming are no longer CP/M 1.4 compatible...
That means that, for them, CP/M 1.4 was the standard...
(In fact, the only "standard" CP/M disk format was the 8"...)

From your question, it seems that, for you, CP/M 2.2 was the
"standard". So, let us summarizes in one paragraph the differences:

- CP/M+ (usually known as "CP/M Plus") was made specifically
for hard disks and a faster CPU that Zilog never made: the Z-800.
With this powerfuller CPU, it was planned that CP/M Plus would
be still single-tasking, but with the ability of running 3 "background
tasks" (not showing on screen, like spool printing of files, etc).

- PCP/M (usually known as "Personal CP/M") was a counter-attack
from Digital Research against the wave of MSX computers made
by Microsoft and a Japanese society. It is "standard" CP/M 2.2,
but rewritten so has to boot from ROM, and with lots of program
menu-driven (rather than using "command lines" like the famous
"A>command filename.typ").

Post by Leon Howell
I know CP/M+ can handle tons of ram, but how much, and is it really
faster?

"tons of RAM" is maybe an exaggeration. By separating many,
many things in the BDOS and BIOS into 2 separate parts, called
the "Resident" and "Banked" (BDOS and BIOS), the usage of
top memory (known as FDOS to us, Old Timers) is much reduced.
It also depends on the number of "devices" supported.

You will be interested to know that the CP/M computer providing
the biggest TPA (63 KB) is not a CP/M Plus system, but a custom
version of CP/M 2.2, known as MultiFont CP/M 2.2, which was sold
in Europe by Epson for their Epson QX-10, the best Z-80 CP/M
micro ever made, in my opinion. (On the same QX-10, CP/M
Plus provides 61 KB of TPA.) (On the Amstrad PCW8256, CP/M
Plus provides 60 KB of TPA.)

"Is it really faster?" It depends from the implementations, but,
in general, I would say: YES. The reason is that, everytime
something is read from a disk, a copy is kept in RAM (usually
in one "Banked" area). Example: as long as you don't change
the disk in the drive, CP/M Plus scans the Directory NOT ON
THE DISK, BUT IN RAM!!! If you have the slightest idea of the
difference of speed between a disk access and a memory
access, you will instantly understand that, properly done, CP/M
Plus can "do circles" around a "standard" CP/M 2.2 implmentation
(even on the same hardware: it is only the OS that is different.
CP/M Plus was designed was huge directories used on hard disks).

Post by Leon Howell
Is PCP/M really just menu driven CP/M+?

No. It is booting from ROM and is not copied from CP/M Plus,
but from CP/M 2.2 (althought it has additional BDOS calls,
but that another story, since it was written after Digital Research
had made so much things that you do not mention (like GSX
and CP/NET)).

Post by Leon Howell
What does Z-System add?

The Z-System was a bastard of Unix and CP/M, exactly the same
as MS-DOS 2+ is a bastard of Unix and CP/M. (Technically,
MS-DOS v1 was a clone of CP/M...) Unix fans dismiss it.
CP/M fans find it repulsive. Only those who have not known the
originals can find them attractive.

Post by Leon Howell
Is MP/M an OS by it's self, or can it be added to CP/M+ or PCP/M?

MP/M is a CP/M-compatible multi-user multi-tasking OS.
In my opinion, it is the most impressive piece of software
ever developed on an 8-bit CPU. It could run 4 people
on a single Z-80 at 4 MHz...

(No, it cannot be added to CP/M Plus or Personal CP/M,
which are other (single-user) OSes.)

Post by Leon Howell
Can any of these multitask?

MP/M: yes. There was a 8086 version called MP/M-86,
then the name was changed to "Concurrent CP/M".
Most of the files that can be found on the Internet were
released from archives. The last owner of the rights to CP/M
says that most stuff was lost when Novell was the owner
of CP/M. Also, since Concurrent CP/M was running
on the IBM PC, they refused to release anything that
could still be used inside the last version (called DR DOS).

Post by Leon Howell
I would also like some detailed info about T/Maker III, supposedly a
combination word proceccor, database & spreadsheet, and "Write Hand
Man" (I may not have the name write) a set of memory resident
accessories.

- T/Maker III was, as you said, a combination. But I would said that
it was more a combination of spreadsheet and database. The
problem is that it was not very good nor impressive. Since the
programs doing only one task could contain more data, it faded
into obscurity. Its programmer continued to sold it privately during
many years. It was programmed in C, hence probably its slowness.

- Write Hand Man (WHM) is a mini-root staying in upper TPA.
When you press your system-dependent combination of keys,
you get a menu of some small utilities. (Personally, for a clock,
I prefer to have a clock next to my computer, and as for ASCII
table, I prefer to have it printed on paper...)
(Lee Hart mentioned WHM a short while ago. Maybe he could
provide you with more information, if you ask.)

Wew!

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Leon Howell

2003-09-10 20:39:09 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
Well, you ask quite a lot of questions in one time...

I am in a hurry here at the library.

Post by Salle Arobase
I am in hurry in this cybercafe, so excuse my short answers.

I understand.

Post by Salle Arobase
The Z-System was a <XXX> of Unix and CP/M, exactly the same
as MS-DOS 2+ is a <XXX> of Unix and CP/M. (Technically,
MS-DOS v1 was a clone of CP/M...) Unix fans dismiss it.
CP/M fans find it repulsive. Only those who have not known the
originals can find them attractive.

Judging by what I've read here and in the Computer Journal, You'd
better leave town for a while...

Post by Salle Arobase
MP/M is a CP/M-compatible multi-user multi-tasking OS.

That's what I want. Where can I get a copy for my Bondwell Model 2?

Post by Salle Arobase
In my opinion, it is the most impressive piece of software ever developed on
an 8-bit CPU.

You should read about OS-9. It's my other second favorite os. (My
first favorite is Basic.)

Post by Salle Arobase
It could run 4 people on a single Z-80 at 4 MHz...

OS-9 does that on a 2 Mhz 6809. It's a lot of fun. How many tasks can
each user run under MP/M? (If it matters, The Bondwell I'm looking for
has 512k and one RS-232C port for a terminal)

Post by Leon Howell
Can any of these multitask?

MP/M: yes. There was a 8086 version called MP/M-86,

I think I've had about enough of the i80x86/8. Can MP/M-80 multitask?

Here's some I forgot about: What are RP/M and RCP/M? Is CP/Net as os
or an upgrade? What network protocols does it use?

Nate Edel

2003-09-10 23:19:09 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
It could run 4 people on a single Z-80 at 4 MHz...

OS-9 does that on a 2 Mhz 6809. It's a lot of fun.

IIRC, 2Mhz 6809 has at least as much processing horsepower as a 4Mhz Z80.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/
"This is not a humorous tagline."

Leon Howell

2003-09-12 01:12:11 UTC

Post by Nate Edel

Post by Salle Arobase
It could run 4 people on a single Z-80 at 4 MHz...

OS-9 does that on a 2 Mhz 6809. It's a lot of fun.

IIRC, 2Mhz 6809 has at least as much processing horsepower as a 4Mhz Z80.

I think the 6800, which was developed after the 8080, is supposed to
have a more efficient instruction set.(Hey look what *intel* did! Of
course we can do better than that...) Naturaly it's not compatible.
The 6809 has a 16-bit execution unit, so it's even faster. Zilog
apparently wanted to be compatible with the 8080, which was more
popular because it was there first. The Z80 is a good chip, especialy
considering what it had to be compatible with. I understand the i8080
was pretty slow compared to most others.

I think for what I want to do, the 4 Mhz Z80 is just as good as the 2
Mhz 6809. I just wish I could find that Bondwell Model 2. Anybody?

Nate Edel

2003-09-12 21:15:43 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
course we can do better than that...) Naturaly it's not compatible.
The 6809 has a 16-bit execution unit, so it's even faster.
Zilog apparently wanted to be compatible with the 8080, which was more
popular because it was there first.

Didn't the original Zilog engineers come from Intel? Or is that apocrypha?
In any case, 8080 done better seems to have been the Z80s reason for being
(and it did a much better job of it than the 8085, from my memory.)

Post by Leon Howell
I think for what I want to do, the 4 Mhz Z80 is just as good as the 2
Mhz 6809. I just wish I could find that Bondwell Model 2. Anybody?

I never used the 6809, just read about it, but the big advantage to the Z80
is the amount of software already written for it. And writing in assembly
was a lot easier in the Z80 than the 6502 which has a _really_ minimal
register set. I can't remember how the 6800 or 6809 were, since I never
worked with aseembly for either.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/
"This is not a humorous tagline."

Charles Richmond

2003-09-13 05:47:41 UTC

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
I never used the 6809, just read about it, but the big advantage to the Z80
is the amount of software already written for it. And writing in assembly
was a lot easier in the Z80 than the 6502 which has a _really_ minimal
register set. I can't remember how the 6800 or 6809 were, since I never
worked with aseembly for either.

IMHO the 6809 had a wonderful instruction set...especially
compared to the Z80 or 6502...or even the 6800. I encourage
you to Google the "MC6809" and read up on it...

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Dosius

2003-09-13 11:56:43 UTC

Post by Nate Edel
I never used the 6809, just read about it, but the big advantage to the Z80
is the amount of software already written for it. And writing in assembly
was a lot easier in the Z80 than the 6502 which has a _really_ minimal
register set. I can't remember how the 6800 or 6809 were, since I never
worked with aseembly for either.

6502 was a 6800 clone IIRC.

-uso.

Michael J. Mahon

2003-09-13 21:21:38 UTC

Post by Dosius
6502 was a 6800 clone IIRC.

Only in some electrical sense--its architecture is quite different.

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

Lee Hart

2003-09-13 21:08:48 UTC

Post by Nate Edel
Didn't the original Zilog engineers come from Intel?

Yes. Federico Faggin was a lead engineer at Intel on the design of the
4004 thru 8080. Intel had (and still does have) a habit of always trying
to 'fire the first shot'; rush to release a chip that isn't really
perfected yet, just to grab the market.

Faggin figured this was stupid; it condemns you to always have the worst
chip on the market, and others will always take the market away from you
as soon as they get their product out. He couldn't convince Intel to
change, so he quit and started Zilog in 1974, taking a number of
engineers with him. The idea was to create a chip that was well enough
designed to have 'staying power' in the market. He succeeded; the Z80 is
the only CPU of that age that is still in mass production.

Post by Nate Edel

Post by Leon Howell
I think for what I want to do, the 4 Mhz Z80 is just as good as the
2 Mhz 6809.

It's hard to compare clock speeds of various CPUs. The Z80 to divide its
clock by about 4 ('about' because bus cycles can be 3,4,5 or more clock
cycles). The 6800/6502/6809 generally divide their clocks by 1 (though
some versions divide it by 4). So a "4 MHz" Z80 is roughly the same
speed as a "1 MHz" 6800/6502, because they are runnning at about the
same actual rate of instructions per second.

--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen

wild bill

2003-09-20 05:26:06 UTC

Faggin .........................................
....................................................... started Zilog in 1974, taking a number of
engineers with him. The idea was to create a chip that was well enough
designed to have 'staying power' in the market. He succeeded; the Z80 is
the only CPU of that age that is still in mass production.

Lee;

Seems to me the RCA/Hughes 1802 is still being made/used, too,

And fur sure, as that's a CMOS part, that's the chip technology
we're all using these days; any idea what the first Intel parts
were? BTW I recently came across some 6502 CMOS parts.

I know I had some 8088 parts in CMOS, but wasn't that an NMOS
part originally? Maybe some NEC parts were also CMOS in the
early x86 line.

Check your Z80 references - I'd bet there aren't any 'current'
ones still being made in NMOS. Or PMOS. Or whatever.

Bill

Michael J. Mahon

2003-09-21 00:24:55 UTC

Post by Lee Hart

Faggin .........................................
....................................................... started Zilog in

1974, taking a number of

engineers with him. The idea was to create a chip that was well enough
designed to have 'staying power' in the market. He succeeded; the Z80 is
the only CPU of that age that is still in mass production.

Lee;
Seems to me the RCA/Hughes 1802 is still being made/used, too,

<snip>

Wasn't the 1802 implemented in CMOS on sapphire? And isn't the
radiation resistance that SOS provides the reason that it was designed
into so many satellites and space probes?

I suspect it may be one of _very_ few choices for a designer who
must deal with a significant radiation flux.

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

Lee Hart

2003-09-21 07:47:21 UTC

Post by wild bill
Seems to me the RCA/Hughes 1802 is still being made/used, too

Yes, it is still in production and being sold by Harris (who bought the
RCA Semiconductor division).

Wasn't the 1802 implemented in CMOS on sapphire? And isn't the
radiation resistance that SOS provides the reason that it was
designed into so many satellites and space probes?
I suspect it may be one of _very_ few choices for a designer who
must deal with a significant radiation flux.

The standard 1802's (and the ones still in production) use ordinary 74C-
and 4000-series CMOS process technology. That means quite slow operating
speed, but very high noise immunity, high supply voltages tolerance (up
to 15-20v), and very low power consumption. Since none of the modern IC
processes can match this combination of features, the 1802 (and other
74C- and 4000-series CMOS parts are still being used in niche markets.

Yes, there were 1802's made with SOS (silicon-on-saphire) process
technology. They were an order of magnitude faster, and had even higher
radiation tolerance than the regular 1802 (which is already orders of
magnitude better than modern chips). But, it never caught on, and is now
just a historical footnote.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen

Charles Richmond

2003-09-22 00:43:20 UTC

[snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
The standard 1802's (and the ones still in production) use ordinary 74C-
and 4000-series CMOS process technology. That means quite slow operating
speed, but very high noise immunity, high supply voltages tolerance (up
to 15-20v), and very low power consumption. Since none of the modern IC
processes can match this combination of features, the 1802 (and other
74C- and 4000-series CMOS parts are still being used in niche markets.
Yes, there were 1802's made with SOS (silicon-on-saphire) process
technology. They were an order of magnitude faster, and had even higher
radiation tolerance than the regular 1802 (which is already orders of
magnitude better than modern chips). But, it never caught on, and is now
just a historical footnote.

ISTR that the OSCAR ham satelites use the 1802. And I thought
that the Galileo probe had some 1802's in it... (By the way,
Galileo was recently crashed into the planet Jupiter.)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Salle Arobase

2003-09-12 10:55:46 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
MP/M is a CP/M-compatible multi-user multi-tasking OS.

That's what I want. Where can I get a copy for my Bondwell Model 2?

All the MP/Ms (8-bit and 16-bit) use terminals connected
via PHYSICAL links. So, the first question is: "How much
serial lines can be connected to your computer?" This will
give you (almost) the number of users that will be able to
use MP/M on your system. I am not familiar with the Bondwell,
but I am afraid that it was not designed to handle several
serial interfaces (or has not the ability to receive several
cards, one for each additional user).

By the way, one of the regular of the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup,
"Bruce", want to design and build a small batch of MP/M II
systems... If you really want a MP/M II system, you could
add yourself to his customer list, and ready your money.
(For details, read the "New Z80182 System Progress" thread.)

(Else, the only way will be to find one old MP/M II system
still in working condition... Good Luck!)

Post by Salle Arobase
In my opinion, it is the most impressive piece of software ever
developed on an 8-bit CPU.

You should read about OS-9.

I know about the OS-9. But it does not run CP/M...

Post by Leon Howell
Here's some I forgot about: What are RP/M and RCP/M? Is CP/Net
an OS or an upgrade? What network protocols does it use?

You really ask lots of questions!

RP/M: I don't know. I know a TP/M, which was a clone of CP/M
on the Epson QX-10, but don't remember a RP/M.

As far as I know, "RCP/M" stands for "Remote CP/M system".
It was a CP/M-based bulleting board that you accessed with
XMODEM (typically), and left with BYE.

CP/NET is a Local Area Network (LAN) Operating System.
It is a set of subroutines that loads high in the TPA, and adds
new BDOS functions (dealing with the Network) to a CP/M 2.2
computer. It is also provided with a set of program to set up
the Network, "attach to the network", "detach", and send mail
to another "node" of the CP/NET (or DR NET) Network.
(But it dates from 1983, and its protocol (more or less based
on the Intel HEX file format) is almost certainly not recognized
by current Network hardware or software running under
Windows and Unixes.)

Wew!

When will it be your turn to say anything?

For example, about your Bondwell...

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Dosius

2003-09-14 06:53:38 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
RP/M: I don't know. I know a TP/M, which was a clone of CP/M
on the Epson QX-10, but don't remember a RP/M.

RP/M was a hack of CP/M and a Z80/Z280 emulator to run it on a PC.
ISTR it being available from www.cpm.z80.de. I don't know if this is
what he's referring to, but I would suspect it might be.

-uso.

Salle Arobase

2003-09-17 12:03:09 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
All the MP/Ms (8-bit and 16-bit) use terminals connected
via PHYSICAL links.

Does the built-in display & Keyboard count as a "physical" link?

No. This is what was implied by my use of the word "terminal"
(or "console", if you prefer). It must be able to display the characters
that it receives, and able to send back your commands. The
advantage of the teletype is that it leaves a trail of everything
displayed/typed on paper. The MP/M system can have its
own terminal but, usually, this is just one of the available terminals.
A reliable MP/M system can perfectly runs without a terminal,
just with terminals connected to it (for example, from another room).

(...) What's MP/M II?

Version 2 of MP/M.

Post by Salle Arobase
CP/NET is a Local Area Network (LAN) Operating System.
It is a set of subroutines that loads high in the TPA, and adds
new BDOS functions (dealing with the Network) to a CP/M 2.2
computer.

Can it be added to MP/M?

Yes, of course. As a matter of fact, CP/M 2.2 "nodes" can only
be "requesters". Only a MP/M system can be a "server".

The last version of CP/Net, Version 1.2, is compatible with
DR Net, so one Linux box running DR Net could be a
gateway to the Internet for a Network of CP/M 2.2 systems...

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Leon Howell

2003-09-17 18:53:00 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
No. This is what was implied by my use of the word "terminal"
(or "console", if you prefer

So is it even possible to run MP/M on, for example, a Kaypro or
Bondwell with enough ram but no terminal connected?

Salle Arobase

2003-09-19 10:41:32 UTC

Excuse me, Leon, but why are you insisting so much on
using a Bondwell 2?

I finally had a look to it on the Internet.

From what I have read, this is just a portable.

It is very far from the standard CP/M systems based
on the S-100 Bus standard (which would allow you
to easily add as much terminals as you want).

The only reasonable use I can think of your Bondwell 2
would be as a serial terminal running CP/NET v1.2
under CP/M 2.2, not as a MP/M II server.

(As far as I know, the company which built the biggest
number of MP/M systems is ALTOS. If I were you,
I would hunt for one of them in the USA.)

(By the way, if you are so much interested in MP/M,
you could open a Web site specialized in it... As far
as I know, the MP/M II guides are not online on the
Internet. However, CP/NET v1.2 is, along with CP/M 2.2,
on the Web pages of Roger Ivie. You will notice that
all the CP/NET doc mentions S-100 Bus cards...)

(I have heard that the company selling "Imsai mark 2"
systems would like to add a MP/M and CP/NET options
to its range of products (maybe this could interest you).
But they are probably much more expensive than a
second-hand ALTOS. However, they should run faster.)

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Leon Howell

2003-09-20 22:39:04 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
Excuse me, Leon, but why are you insisting so much on
using a Bondwell 2?
I finally had a look to it on the Internet.
From what I have read, this is just a portable.
It is very far from the standard CP/M systems based
on the S-100 Bus standard (which would allow you
to easily add as much terminals as you want).

I don't need that many terminals, I just want to try it with one or
two. Mostly I want the multitasking.

First I need a good laptop. I like the Bondwell 2, Tandy Model 200,
and NEC PC-8500. They all have similar features, exept that the B2 has
nothing in rom. But it's expandable to 512k! In a laptop! And since it
runs CP/M, you can really *use* that 512k! True, other CP/M, Basic,
and OS-9 computers are expandable to 512 or more, but do they run on
batteries? Can you hold them in one hand and type with the other? I
doubt it, but if so, tell me about them. While you're at it, tell me
about this JONOS you like. I can't find anything about it on the
internet.

So, is it possible to run MP/M on a Bondwell, Kaypro, NEC, TRS-80,
etc., using the main console, no terminals, just multitasking?

Leon Howell

2003-10-17 01:37:56 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
All the MP/Ms (8-bit and 16-bit) use terminals connected
via PHYSICAL links.

Does the built-in display & Keyboard count as a "physical" link?

No.

So It's impossible to use MP/M-86 on a Tandy 1400LT with no serial
terminal? Isn't there any kind of patch? (Stupid question:Would GSX
help?) I only need one "terminal", It's the multitasking I really
want.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-17 10:47:01 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
All the MP/Ms (8-bit and 16-bit) use terminals connected
via PHYSICAL links.

Does the built-in display & Keyboard count as a "physical" link?

No.

In this case, Digital Research made a later version of MP/M-86
named Concurrent CP/M, whose main difference (at the
beginning) was that it provided "virtual consoles" (instead of
"physical consoles"). (This was done because of the limitations
of the hardware of the IBM Clown.)

That is to say: Typing Alt-1 would display the screen of console #1,
Alt-2 would display the screen of console #2, etc, up to Alt-4.

Unfortunately, no copies of the binaries of the files of Concurrent
CP/M Release 3.1 for the IBM PC have been found, so far.

Maybe this thread will produce something?

(The best Operating System is useless without good software.
Me, what I would like to find is WS4 for CP/M-86...)

(GSX would not help, since its only purpose is to provide
a PORTABLE graphics system.)

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-19 18:54:47 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
In this case, Digital Research made a later version of MP/M-86
named Concurrent CP/M,

While CCP/M derived from MP/M it wasn't a 'version' of it.

Post by Salle Arobase
whose main difference (at the
beginning) was that it provided "virtual consoles" (instead of
"physical consoles").

No. Wrong. CCP/M-86 version 1 was intended as a multi-tasking
replacement for CP/M-86 and was single user, that was a significant
difference too. Later they added back multi-user.

Post by Salle Arobase
(This was done because of the limitations
of the hardware of the IBM Clown.)

There was nothing about the 'limitations' of the IBM PC. In fact the
memory mapped display aided the implementation of the virtual screens.
Screens could be changed by simply copying 4kb from the virtual
screen to the video card. On other machines the whole sequence of
serial terminal escapes would have had to be done. This was too slow
and complicated. Most CCP/M-86 machines ( eg ICL Quattro and DRS300)
used semi-intellegent serial terminal that supported holding the
virtual screens in the terminal for fast switching.

Post by Salle Arobase
That is to say: Typing Alt-1 would display the screen of console #1,
Alt-2 would display the screen of console #2, etc, up to Alt-4.

MP/M-86 also had the ability to multi-task by switching between
sessions on a single console with Ctrl-D.

Post by Salle Arobase
Unfortunately, no copies of the binaries of the files of Concurrent
CP/M Release 3.1 for the IBM PC have been found, so far.

What's your point ? CCP/M-86 started at release 1.x and went up to
6.2 for the IBM PC-XT. 3.1 was the last version before the name
changed to Concurrent-DOS. Why do you think it is in any way
'special' ?

CCP/M-86 was developed into CDOS-386 with several significant
improvements, and was renamed as DR-Multiuser-DOS 5 (to benefit from
DR-DOS name). VAR versions were System Manager from DataPac and
Real/32 from IMS.

Post by Salle Arobase
Maybe this thread will produce something?
(The best Operating System is useless without good software.
Me, what I would like to find is WS4 for CP/M-86...)

The developers of WordStar left where the corp decided to concentrate
on WS-2000. They formed NewWord and developed what was intended to be
the next 'normal' WordStar. WS2000 failed and WS bought the NewWord
company and released NewWord as WordStar 4 for the IBM. NewWord is
WS4 for CCP/M-86, there is almost no difference at all.

Post by Salle Arobase
(GSX would not help, since its only purpose is to provide
a PORTABLE graphics system.)

Salle Arobase

2003-10-21 15:11:04 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
In this case, Digital Research made a later version of MP/M-86
named Concurrent CP/M,

While CCP/M derived from MP/M it wasn't a 'version' of it.

Post by Salle Arobase
whose main difference (at the
beginning) was that it provided "virtual consoles" (instead of
"physical consoles").

No. Wrong. CCP/M-86 version 1 was intended as a multi-tasking
replacement for CP/M-86 and was single user, that was a significant
difference too. Later they added back multi-user.

No. Wrong. Do you want me to copy the paragraphs in the CCP/M 3.1
doc? CCP/M cannot be "a multi-tasking replacement for CP/M-86",
since they do not have the same BDOS...

In case you do not know, CP/M-86 was as straight as possible a
8086 implementation of CP/M 2.2, down to its BDOS (ver 2)
(modifying a single-user OS to become a muti-tasking multi-use
OS is a not trivial thing. MP/M II already existed: they made a
8086 version; they never tried to "improve" CP/M-86).

BDOS 3, that I met under CP/M Plus, is the son of the MP/M BDOS,
and was ported to the 8086 (MP/M-86, which used PHYSICAL
consoles, and later Concurrent CP/M, which used VIRTUAL consoles).

I don't know if you know it, but Digital Research decided to develop
Concurrent CP/M, not CP/M-86, when MS-DOS was adopted by
most IBM Clown users.

As far as I know, CP/M-86 was never maintained nor updated by
Digital Research.

In contrast, Concurrent CP/M (son of MP/M-86) certainly was...

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Leon Howell

2003-10-21 18:34:35 UTC

This is getting very interesting. There may be hope for the pee see
after all.

What are the system requirements of CCP/M-86? How much ram does it
use, and how much do some popular applications take? Is there a good
integrated application package? If so, can I run the whole thing in
640k-768k?

Salle Arobase

2003-10-22 13:24:03 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
What are the system requirements of CCP/M-86? How much ram does it
use, and how much do some popular applications take? Is there a good
integrated application package? If so, can I run the whole thing in
640k-768k?

System requirements: The LOADER checks for 160 KB.

How much RAM: about 140 KB.

How much RAM used by "some popular applications": The length of
their CMD files (minus the "Header Record").

Good Integrated: None known, so far.

Can I run it in 640 KB?: Yes, it is a 8086 program: it has no idea that
RAM can exist above that.

All you need is disassemble a 55 KB SYS file of 8086 code,
then you have your own Operating System running on an
IBM Clown.

This is what have been working on a few persons of this
Newsgroup, since 2000, when CP/M-86 Plus was found.

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-22 18:57:44 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
How much RAM used by "some popular applications": The length of
their CMD files (minus the "Header Record").

No. Wrong. While CP/M and MS-DOS .COM files are simply binary images
that are stream loaded into memory and thus roughly equate to memory
usage, CP/M-86 .CMD are structured files that contain loadable
segments that may or may not relate to memory requirements. In 8080
(tiny) and small memory models there may be a rough equivalence
between file size and memory usage. In other memory models there may
be no direct relationship, especially when the program is overlayed
from the .CMD file.

Post by Salle Arobase
Can I run it in 640 KB?: Yes, it is a 8086 program: it has no idea that
RAM can exist above that.

Well, _you_ may have no idea that RAM can exist above 640Kb, the 8086
thinks it can go all the way up to 1 MByte.

Leon Howell

2003-10-22 20:42:22 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
How much RAM used by "some popular applications"

Ok, specificaly, can I (usualy) run four at a time in 640k/768k?

<snip technical stuff that's still over my big fat empty head>

Post by Richard
Well, _you_ may have no idea that RAM can exist above 640Kb, the 8086
thinks it can go all the way up to 1 MByte.

You know that, and I know that, but does the *bios* know that?

Richard

2003-10-23 02:33:36 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Ok, specificaly, can I (usualy) run four at a time in 640k/768k?

Using Concurrent-CP/M-86 an IBM PC XT with 640Kb can run four programs
at a time as long as they will fit into the available memory, and this
depends on the actual programs. For example WordStar for CP/M-86
version 3.3 takes 112Kb on my system here. VFiler uses 64Kb.

Post by Richard
Well, _you_ may have no idea that RAM can exist above 640Kb, the 8086
thinks it can go all the way up to 1 MByte.

You know that, and I know that, but does the *bios* know that?

Many machines are not IBM PCs or clones, even 8086 ones. The ICL PC2s
and Quattros, Compupros, Altos, for example, can use the full
addressable 1024 Kb for OS and programs.

Now in respect of the IBM BIOS, there is nothing in that to prevent
programs using the full 1 megabyte of address space. Of course many
types of access will fail if the locations are missing or read-only.

Leon Howell

2003-10-22 20:56:07 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
How much RAM: about 140 KB.

Is that hoe much the *OS* uses!?

Post by Salle Arobase
Good Integrated: None known, so far.

Can it run mess-dos programs?

Leon Howell

2003-10-28 19:20:43 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
How much RAM: about 140 KB.

Is that how much the *OS* uses!?

Post by Salle Arobase
Good Integrated: None known, so far.

Can it run mess-dos programs?

Sorry if that was taken as rude or insulting; I'm shure ms-dos
programs are a little unpopular here. But there's an integrated
application package called "Framework" that fits on a 720k floppy with
ms-dos, and I was hoping I could use it with a good os. Does anyone
here know anything about Framework? I would appriceate *any*
information, espesialy where to get it.

Leon Howell

2003-10-29 21:32:49 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Does anyone
here know anything about Framework? I would appriceate *any*
information, espesialy where to get it.

Or better yet, Enable. It has a word proccessor, database,
spreadsheet, terminal, and graphics, and up to 8 windows, even on an
XT.

Good grief, it must have been written by an OS-9 user or something.
But it's for dos, so I was thinking how much fun it would be to
experiment with something that powerfull under an os like CCP/M. Could
I really run 4 apps at a time out of *32* in memory? Task switching
and multitasking at the same time?

Of course that would require a big ram upgrade, but JDR user to sell
some pretty big 8-bit ram cards. Not for the 1400LT though :(

Comments?

Roberto Waltman

2003-10-29 23:56:46 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Sorry if that was taken as rude or insulting; I'm shure ms-dos
programs are a little unpopular here. But there's an integrated
application package called "Framework" that fits on a 720k floppy with
ms-dos, and I was hoping I could use it with a good os. Does anyone
here know anything about Framework? I would appriceate *any*
information, espesialy where to get it.

Surprisingly, from http://www.framework.com
(The original vendor, Ashton-Tate, has not been in business for years)
The 720K fitting version is probably Framework-II

Symantec's Q&A is also a good MS-DOS based integrated office package.

Roberto Waltman

Leon Howell

2003-10-30 02:08:53 UTC

Post by Roberto Waltman
Surprisingly, from http://www.framework.com

Duh. Why don't I ever think of things like that?

Post by Roberto Waltman
Symantec's Q&A is also a good MS-DOS based integrated office package.

Does it fit on one 720k floppy?

What about Enable? It sounds like the best one so far.

Leon Howell

2003-11-08 23:49:47 UTC

Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 00:20:17 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

No.

Richard

2003-11-09 05:44:20 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

No, but there is MP/M (-80).

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 06:25:33 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

No, but there is MP/M (-80).

MP/M was available in at least three different DR versions. CCP/M & MP/M
are distinct, they have totally different goals. MP/M was phased out by DR.
It seams that networking was seen as the way to get the most out of the
hardware.

Richard

2003-11-09 23:30:47 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

No, but there is MP/M (-80).

MP/M was available in at least three different DR versions.

MP/M, MP/M II were for 8 bit systems.
MP/M-86 was 16 bit.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
CCP/M & MP/M are distinct, they have totally different goals.

Crap. CCP/M derived from and was the replacement for MP/M-86. While
they originally implemented CCP/M 1.x on the IBM PC as a single-user
system, this was mainly due to lack of multiuser hardware. With
'StarNet' (serial card) it was multiuser, even on very early versions.
All CCP/M s on other machines, such as ICL, Compupro, Altos etc, were
multiuser and were direct replacements and upgrade for MP/M-86.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
MP/M was phased out by DR.

Because it was superceeded by CCP/M-86 multiuser.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
It seams that networking was seen as the way to get the most out of the
hardware.

Did you not know that MP/M was initially designed to act as a network
server ? Later it was mainly used in multiuser systems, CCP/M-86 just
carried on that process to give a better mechanism for multi-tasking
for each user.

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 23:56:40 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Hey, wait a minute! Is there a CCP/M-80?

No, but there is MP/M (-80).

MP/M was available in at least three different DR versions.

MP/M, MP/M II were for 8 bit systems.
MP/M-86 was 16 bit.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
CCP/M & MP/M are distinct, they have totally different goals.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
MP/M was phased out by DR.

Because it was superceeded by CCP/M-86 multiuser.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
It seams that networking was seen as the way to get the most out of the
hardware.

MP/M was intended as a multi-user system, networking came later (CP/NET), it
was NOT originally intended as a network server.

CCP/M was intended as a multi-tasking system that allows multiuser. MP/M
was intended as a multi-user system that did multi-tasking. The change in
emphasis is significant in understanding how the OS grew. One can
definitely say that CCP/M started out as MP/M III(86), but you must
understand the direction changed especially toward CC-DOS.

I had several clients running on Compupro 816's running MP/M 8/16, when
their software changed from CP/M-80 to DOS all I did was change their OS to
CC-DOS 8/16. I am very aware of what CCP/M & CC/DOS did and I also
understand the thinking behind the OS's goals.

MP/M would let you start programs in the background while CCP/M always had
VT's. VT's made it easier especially for people who were not computer
geeks. Running programs in background on MP/M left it up to the user to
keep things straight.

Richard

2003-11-10 09:01:02 UTC

Post by Randy McLaughlin
CCP/M was intended as a multi-tasking system that allows multiuser. MP/M
was intended as a multi-user system that did multi-tasking. The change in
emphasis is significant in understanding how the OS grew.

What crap. MP/M had limited usefulness for multi-tasking due to lack
of virtualised screens. Concurrent added virtual consoles to MP/M-86.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
One can
definitely say that CCP/M started out as MP/M III(86), but you must
understand the direction changed especially toward CC-DOS.

The DOS emulation feature was an add on module called PC-MODE in
CCP/M-86 version 3.1 and this was emhanced and permanently configured
in on CDOS 4.1 and beyond.

It is simplay a matter of continuous development, adding features to
meet user needs of the time.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
I had several clients running on Compupro 816's running MP/M 8/16, when
their software changed from CP/M-80 to DOS all I did was change their OS to
CC-DOS 8/16. I am very aware of what CCP/M & CC/DOS did and I also
understand the thinking behind the OS's goals.

Not only did I also work with MP/M (and some of its competitors such
as Turbo-DOS) I also used CCP/M and CDOS, CDOS-386, DR-MDOS, System
Manager, Real/32 and still have clients that run these.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
MP/M would let you start programs in the background while CCP/M always had
VT's. VT's made it easier especially for people who were not computer
geeks. Running programs in background on MP/M left it up to the user to
keep things straight.

Exactly, CCP/M was a better MP/M. CDOS-386 was better again because
it virtualised the direct screen write buffers.

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-10 16:51:11 UTC

Post by Randy McLaughlin
CCP/M was intended as a multi-tasking system that allows multiuser.

MP/M

Post by Randy McLaughlin
was intended as a multi-user system that did multi-tasking. The change in
emphasis is significant in understanding how the OS grew.

What crap. MP/M had limited usefulness for multi-tasking due to lack
of virtualised screens. Concurrent added virtual consoles to MP/M-86.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
One can
definitely say that CCP/M started out as MP/M III(86), but you must
understand the direction changed especially toward CC-DOS.

The DOS emulation feature was an add on module called PC-MODE in
CCP/M-86 version 3.1 and this was emhanced and permanently configured
in on CDOS 4.1 and beyond.
It is simplay a matter of continuous development, adding features to
meet user needs of the time.

Not only did I also work with MP/M (and some of its competitors such
as Turbo-DOS) I also used CCP/M and CDOS, CDOS-386, DR-MDOS, System
Manager, Real/32 and still have clients that run these.

Exactly, CCP/M was a better MP/M. CDOS-386 was better again because
it virtualised the direct screen write buffers.

You missed two points:

Turbo-Dos (which I also developed for) was NOT an MP/M competitor. It was
not a multiuser system. It did NOT allow multiple people to use one
computer. It did NOT allow one user to run multiple tasks on one computer.
It was a great OS that was a competitor to serveral other OS's, but not
MP/M.

Second when DR came out with a multitasking system with VT's they obviously
understood that it was no longer MP/M. It was an upgrade path from MP/M,
but they knew it was exactly what they called it CCP/M. An OS that changed
direction. It changed direction because something had changed in the
hardware world. Money and power, all of the IBM clones were cheap and CPU
speed was jumping. The computers were competitive in price to dumb
terminals so it was no longer as smart an idea to hang terminals off of one
CPU. It did make since to use one computer to do multiple things for one
user.

DR called it CCP/M. That says it all, the direction had changed.

Richard

2003-10-21 19:46:44 UTC

Post by Richard
No. Wrong. CCP/M-86 version 1 was intended as a multi-tasking
replacement for CP/M-86 and was single user, that was a significant
difference too. Later they added back multi-user.

No. Wrong. Do you want me to copy the paragraphs in the CCP/M 3.1
doc?

I suspect that I have far more 'CCP/M' docs than you do, including
references to the version 1 which was single-user.

By the time 3.1 came around it added back the multi-user capability to
be a replacement for MP/M-86 as well.

Post by Salle Arobase
CCP/M cannot be "a multi-tasking replacement for CP/M-86",
since they do not have the same BDOS...

Perhaps you fail to understand what the word 'replacement' means. All
the CP/M-86 BDOS functionality is in CCP/M-86.

Post by Salle Arobase
In case you do not know, CP/M-86 was as straight as possible a
8086 implementation of CP/M 2.2, down to its BDOS (ver 2)

Geez, do you think I may not know this ?

Post by Salle Arobase
(modifying a single-user OS to become a muti-tasking multi-use
OS is a not trivial thing. MP/M II already existed: they made a
8086 version; they never tried to "improve" CP/M-86).

Which is why the word 'replacement' was used rather than the word
'improvement'.

Post by Salle Arobase
I don't know if you know it, but Digital Research decided to develop
Concurrent CP/M, not CP/M-86, when MS-DOS was adopted by
most IBM Clown users.

Actually, DRI was developing CCP/M-86 well before IBM Clones with
MS-DOS existed. Version 1 was released in Sept 1982, prior to
PC-DOS/MS-DOS version 2 and over a year before any clones were
delivered.

""At the West Coast Computer Faire in March 1982, DRI previewed
Concurrent CP/M-86. [this] allows a _single_user_ to run several
programs simultaneously on the PC, using virtual terminals. ...""

Post by Salle Arobase
As far as I know, CP/M-86 was never maintained nor updated by
Digital Research.

The DRI releases of generic CP/M-86 were:

1.0 January 1981
1.1 'early' 1982

1.0 lacked DIRS and HELP commands, could not run SYS files in user 0
from other areas and PIP lacked the [G] option.

In what way was the change from 1.0 to 1.1 not 'maintain and update' ?

For the IBM PC the IBM release was March 1982 and this was never
updated or maintained by anyone. However, because IBM kept the price
at $250, DRI developed its own CP/M-86 for the IBM PC and released it
for $60 in March 1983 incorporating many improvements and updates,
such as GSX, CONFIG, DSKMAINT, FUNCTION and PRINT commands. It later
released an updated version in 'mid' 1983 for the XT. Both were
called version 1.1, the latter added 'for PC XT'.

Interestingly the DRI version for the PC could only use 544 Kb of RAM
while the XT version could use 640Kb. The XT version could access the
IBM PC XT hard disks while earlier versions could access hard disks on
the IBM PC using a Xebec controller only. PC-DOS 1 could not access
hard disks at all.

In what way were these not 'update and maintain' ?

I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used. It may be
that this was not actually a limit of CP/M-86 itself but was all that
an IBM PC could use at the time CP/M-86 was released. Original IBM
PCs (Model As) were physically limited to 256Kb max even with several
RAM cards due to bus designs. The Model B (which I have here) used a
different planar layout to allow full addressing of RAM, but perhaps
it could only be fitted with 544Kb using contemporary mamory cards in
the number of slots available.

Post by Salle Arobase
In contrast, Concurrent CP/M (son of MP/M-86) certainly was...

Exactly, that is the nature of a 'replacement'.

Concurrent-CP/M-86 version 1.0 also received a 'for XT' version around
the same time as CP/M-86 in mid 83. But it moved on to version 2.0 in
Feb 84, still single user, then to version 3.x which brought the
multi-user features back to replace MP/M-86 2.1 too.

primo

2003-10-21 20:42:14 UTC

Post by Richard
I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used. It may be
that this was not actually a limit of CP/M-86 itself but was all that
an IBM PC could use at the time CP/M-86 was released. Original IBM
PCs (Model As) were physically limited to 256Kb max even with several
RAM cards due to bus designs. The Model B (which I have here) used a
different planar layout to allow full addressing of RAM, but perhaps
it could only be fitted with 544Kb using contemporary mamory cards in
the number of slots available.

I've also got a copy of ccpm stored in a box somewhere, and I remember
having a limit based on bios roms blocking out part of the address
space. I seem to remember it accessing 9 64K pages.

Something like the SWP copower+ could access 980K (at least with msdos
2) since it had no address space given over to video board, hard
drive, etc.

One of these days I'll have enough time to pull it out and see if any
of my old 4.77mhz machines (2 compaqs and several coronas) will still
boot it up.

Richard

2003-10-22 05:09:28 UTC

Post by primo

Post by Richard
I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used.

I've also got a copy of ccpm stored in a box somewhere, and I remember
having a limit based on bios roms blocking out part of the address
space. I seem to remember it accessing 9 64K pages.

The 8088 IBM PC design did put hardware and ROMs in the address space,
yes, but these started at 640Kb leaving 10 x 64Kb for OS and program
memory and 6 x 64Kb for memory mapped devices and ROMs. With some
video adaptors some additional program space could be reclaimed.

The question was specifically about why only 544Kb RAM could be used
rather that 640Kb. 96Kb is missing with no explanation.

Post by primo
Something like the SWP copower+ could access 980K (at least with msdos
2) since it had no address space given over to video board, hard
drive, etc.

Same with ACT Sirius, ICL PC2 and Quattro, Compupro, Altos and many
others.

Richard

2003-10-22 05:17:54 UTC

Post by Richard
I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used.

Of course it could be that the 544Kb referred to the free memory in
the TPA rather than the amount of RAM that could be used, but it
doesn't appear to.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-22 13:31:15 UTC

Post by Richard
I suspect that I have far more 'CCP/M' docs than you do, including
references to the version 1 which was single-user.

Then, what are waiting for?

Waiting for the water to boil in your empty unplugged electric teapot?

"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-22 22:32:57 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
Then, what are waiting for?

I am waiting for Nicolas Chauvin to exit stage left.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-24 12:13:31 UTC

As usual, you are off topic.

I wrote about your strange behavior, and you answer talking
about jingoism.

1) Years after years, you have told us that you have many
interesting/lost things for the people reading this comp.os.cpm
Newsgroup.

Example: your message where you say that you have 2 copies
of the Personal BASIC doc. "Gaby" asked you to scan them.
2 years later, no doc for Personal BASIC can be found
anywhere...

Several people (who publish frequently) are working on
recreating the source code of Concurrent CP/M.

You boasted many, many times that you have almost
all the versions.

Yet, mysteriously, you never seem to have read those
messages, that everybody else has read...

Recently, I needed to transfer some ICL Quattro floppies.

One more time, you said publicly that you had the program.

My box of floppies is still not transferred.

Etc, etc.

2) On the other hand, years after years, you have bored us
telling (advertising? Many times I have thought that your
only work what to lobby us into buying your OS) that you
were using a totally unknown operating system(s) still
able to run CP/M-86 ComManD files.

Of course, you never failed to mention that they were able
to run MeSsy-DOS or Windows!!!

Should I tell you what is the name of this Newsgroup?

Should I tell you where you can put your stuff?

If you don't want to share what CP/M stuff you have with us,
leave us alone, and go play with the others people using
your non-CP/M Dead Operating Systems.

You are clearly, obviously, categorically, unequivocally
the "bore" of this Newsgroup.

From now on, I will call you Richard "I have it" Plinston.

"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-24 18:59:08 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
Recently, I needed to transfer some ICL Quattro floppies.
One more time, you said publicly that you had the program.

Here is what I _actually_ said:

"""I don't have any non-commercial programs that will read ICL
PC2/Quattro
disks. That is not normally a problem because the machines will
read/write
IBM PC 360Kb diskettes (requires PC-MODE installed when CCP/M 3.1)."""

Post by Salle Arobase
My box of floppies is still not transferred.

I am still waiting for them to turn up in the post, or were you
expecting me to bring my machine to you ?

Post by Salle Arobase
only work what to lobby us into buying your OS) that you
were using a totally unknown operating system(s) still
able to run CP/M-86 ComManD files.

It is relevant because it is DRI, it is part of the family of CP/M. I
was changing it from the state of 'totally unknown' into 'aware'. If
you don't like it then don't read it and continue to ramble on about
your own causes.

Post by Salle Arobase
Of course, you never failed to mention that they were able
to run MeSsy-DOS or Windows!!!

When asked.

Post by Salle Arobase
Should I tell you where you can put your stuff?

I am sorry, but I think that you should know that is _not_ the way to
get co-operation from anyone. You rant about how no one rushes out to
do what _you_ want and attempt to 'motivate' by insulting them.

Perhaps that is just the French character.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-28 13:41:34 UTC

Personal BASIC Language - Reference Manual - April 1983
Personal BASIC Language - Tutorial - 1983
Personal BASIC Additional Documentation - August 1983
I seem to have 2 sets.

Richard "I have it", how do you call the behavior of someone
who accumulate and accumulate stuff without ever sharing
anything (not even a photocopy) with anybody else?

How do you call the behavior of someone who says over
and over "I have it", yet never provide the slightest information
about some of the most sought after stuff?

How do you call the behavior of someone who says over
and over that some totally unknown non-CP/M Dead
Operating System can still run CP/M-86 ComManD
files, while some of the most active members of this
comp.os.cpm Newsgroup are working very hard to
understand and maintain CP/M-86, CP/M-86 Plus,
Concurrent CP/M Release 3.1, and DOS Plus?
(Telling us, in addition, that he has all the release versions,
all the doc, and all the binary files, yet never even
copying one of them for us!)

Are you sure that you are not suffering from a mental illness?

According to Sigmund Freud, the people who exhibit
this kind of behavior had a problem during their youth
related to their anal sphyncter...

"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-28 18:09:25 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
(Telling us, in addition, that he has all the release versions,
all the doc, and all the binary files, yet never even
copying one of them for us!)

No, I don't think that I ever said 'all', just some.

Post by Salle Arobase
According to Sigmund Freud, the people who exhibit
this kind of behavior had a problem during their youth
related to their anal sphyncter...

The problem I have is with the French Arsehole who seems to think, in
a typically gaullic way, that insults are better than polite requests.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-31 11:29:34 UTC

By the way, could you stay on topic?

Personal BASIC Language - Reference Manual - April 1983
Personal BASIC Language - Tutorial - 1983
Personal BASIC Additional Documentation - August 1983
I seem to have 2 sets.

"French Luser"

Richard

2003-10-31 23:54:26 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
By the way, could you stay on topic?

Personal BASIC Language - Reference Manual - April 1983
Personal BASIC Language - Tutorial - 1983
Personal BASIC Additional Documentation - August 1983

ROFL, you are the complete fool. In this topic it is only you that
has posted these lines, and you now claim they are 'off topic'.

In the original topic they were in, they were a specific answer to a
question from you about these documents.

It seems that you are getting desparately irrational.

Ross Simpson

2003-11-01 02:24:10 UTC

"Richard" wrote in message...

Post by Salle Arobase
By the way, could you stay on topic?

Personal BASIC Language - Reference Manual - April 1983
Personal BASIC Language - Tutorial - 1983
Personal BASIC Additional Documentation - August 1983

ROFL, you are the complete fool. In this topic it is only you that
has posted these lines, and you now claim they are 'off topic'.

I agree with you, Personal BASIC should be exceptable discussion to discuss
here. It could be discussed in comp.lang.basic.misc, but you may get the
wrong responce back though some people here I think do read that group as
well.

However, there are people who send their machine specific problems here
because they don't know where else they can go, but they could get the right
group of people.

Post by Richard
In the original topic they were in, they were a specific answer to a
question from you about these documents.

I think my point above seems to be of more concern (to people who are
worrying about off-topic discussion), though it doesn't seem to worry me or
anybody else around here!

Cheers,
Ross.

Leon Howell

2003-11-07 02:21:49 UTC

Post by Ross Simpson
I agree with you, Personal BASIC should be exceptable discussion to discuss
here.

I also think MBasic should be acceptable. (Note the spelling of
acceptable. Don't you have SpellStar? :)

Post by Ross Simpson
It could be discussed in comp.lang.basic.misc,

Is that group about real Basic, like MBasic, C= Basic 7.0, Tandy DECB,
etc., or is it really about pascal, like S-Basic, Q-Basic, Basic-09,
or Visual Basic?

I really get sick of reading something about Basic (Remember the
"Basic Stamp" microcontrollers?) only to find that it's really Pascal.
Pascal is fine, but it's not Basic. Basic is flexible-no forced
structure-so the casual programmer can play with it, or the serious
proffessional can structure his program any way he wants, even in
Pascal's rigid style. Even Logo is closer to Basic than S-Basic.

Ross Simpson

2003-11-07 07:49:05 UTC

"Leon Howell" wrote in message...

Post by Ross Simpson
I agree with you, Personal BASIC should be exceptable
discussion to discuss here.

I also think MBasic should be acceptable. (Note the spelling of
acceptable. Don't you have SpellStar? :)

Well that's just not exceptable! ;-)

Post by Ross Simpson
It could be discussed in comp.lang.basic.misc,

Is that group about real Basic, like MBasic, C= Basic 7.0, Tandy DECB,
etc., or is it really about pascal, like S-Basic, Q-Basic, Basic-09,
or Visual Basic?

It's a discussion on just about every concievable BASIC known, but mainly
discussed is the Visual BASIC, Q-BASIC & Power BASIC, the first 2 have their
own groups, so it beats me why they go there. Haven't noticed a group for
Power BASIC, unless this is it! :-)

Post by Leon Howell
I really get sick of reading something about Basic (Remember the
"Basic Stamp" microcontrollers?) only to find that it's really Pascal.

They aren't supposed to be related, however it's been discussed that Turbo
Pascal isn't Pascal, which in theory looks correct! :-) But 'am not about to
turn it into some BASIC lookalike which is full of horrible GOTOs!

Post by Leon Howell
Pascal is fine, but it's not Basic. Basic is flexible-no forced
structure-so the casual programmer can play with it, or the serious
proffessional can structure his program any way he wants, even in
Pascal's rigid style. Even Logo is closer to Basic than S-Basic.

If you have (or had) a look at the Moonrock compiler & you'll think it's
based on C (well maybe SmallC! :-), they do compile a high-level looking
code into Assembly for which the Assembler needs to compile, in order to get
some working code! :-)

Cheers,
Ross.

Leon Howell

2003-11-08 23:47:23 UTC

Post by Ross Simpson
It's a discussion on just about every concievable BASIC known, but mainly
discussed is the Visual BASIC, Q-BASIC & Power BASIC, the first 2 have their
own groups, so it beats me why they go there. Haven't noticed a group for
Power BASIC, unless this is it! :-)

Post by Leon Howell
I really get sick of reading something about Basic (Remember the
"Basic Stamp" microcontrollers?) only to find that it's really Pascal.

They aren't supposed to be related,

According to the reveiws and manuals for many of these versions of
Pascal that call themselves Basic, they *are* related to Pascal, even
thogh they still claim to be basic.

Post by Ross Simpson
however it's been discussed that Turbo
Pascal isn't Pascal, which in theory looks correct! :-)

I an not familiar with that argument. I'm not a pascal fan, and I have
very little experience with it.

Ok, let me explain what makes Basic Basic. It is *extremely* flexible,
and it has:

***AN IMEDIATE MODE***!!! !!! !!!

If there are no line numbers, then I don't care what the copywrighted
name is, it's not Basic.

One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system. CP/M is an OS, but not a language. You can program
in it with submit files, (I've heard the're like dos batch files) like
but there's that forced structure again.

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 00:26:45 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
I really get sick of reading something about Basic (Remember the
"Basic Stamp" microcontrollers?) only to find that it's really Pascal.

They aren't supposed to be related,

According to the reveiws and manuals for many of these versions of
Pascal that call themselves Basic, they *are* related to Pascal, even
thogh they still claim to be basic.

Post by Ross Simpson
however it's been discussed that Turbo
Pascal isn't Pascal, which in theory looks correct! :-)

I an not familiar with that argument. I'm not a pascal fan, and I have
very little experience with it.
Ok, let me explain what makes Basic Basic. It is *extremely* flexible,
***AN IMEDIATE MODE***!!! !!! !!!

The first basic was a compiler.

Post by Leon Howell
If there are no line numbers, then I don't care what the copywrighted
name is, it's not Basic.

The reason that the first basics had line numbers was for editing on
teletypes. Without line numbers editing a program in memory is difficult
and expensive without a VDT. Most basic programs were originally written on
TTY's and saved to PTP's. Fortran and Cobol normally used punch cards
(without the hanging chad).

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system. CP/M is an OS, but not a language. You can program
in it with submit files, (I've heard the're like dos batch files) like
but there's that forced structure again.

Ross Simpson

2003-11-09 03:25:46 UTC

"Leon Howell" wrote in message...

According to the reviews and manuals for many of these versions of
Pascal that call themselves Basic, they *are* related to Pascal, even
thogh they still claim to be basic.

Well, when I take out my sheet which talks about Computer Languages &
Decendants (if you can call it that), then the only which links these 2
languages up is Algol 60 (which simply only had Algol 58 & Fortran I
decending it).
If it was looked at as a family tree, then I would say they were distant
cousins! :-)

The 1964 edition of BASIC has more of the Fortran side about it with a
hint of Algol 60! :-) Where's PASCAL originally consentrated on the
Algol side more.

The confusing side about all of this, is when you start discussing the
offset's of BASIC. The newer languages like Visual BASIC do exceed the
point in terms of the way it performs, where's older BASIC found in
microcomputers (of the '80s) showed the basic foundations of the
language.

however it's been discussed that Turbo Pascal isn't Pascal, which
in theory looks correct! :-)

I an not familiar with that argument. I'm not a pascal fan, and I have
very little experience with it.

Well it's basically like what I was discussing about BASIC (being
modified & customed for a computer system). Turbo Pascal takes it's
elements from the PASCAL side of things & pretties things it up, but it
also has it's standard (which I don't follow or understand too well), so
I just use the language & write whatever code based on whatever machine
I'm using). The downside is the portability.

Ok, let me explain what makes Basic Basic. It is *extremely* flexible,

As is Turbo Pascal is flexible, the IBM PC version has it's own set of
goodies (features), which makes it different from the CP/M-80, CP/M-86 &
MS-DOS version! ;-)

***AN IMEDIATE MODE***!!! !!! !!!
If there are no line numbers, then I don't care what the copywrighted
name is, it's not Basic.

Not even CBASIC? (It can have line numbers in it's programs - but
doesn't need to! :-)

One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system. CP/M is an OS, but not a language. You can program
in it with submit files, (I've heard the're like dos batch files) like
but there's that forced structure again.

Don't believe CP/M submit files are as flexible as DOS batch files, I've
seen some fairly complicated Batch Files & they aren't you're basic
autoexec.bat file either! ;-) You can even write DOS '.com' files out of
batch files.

Cheers,
Ross.

Phil Dumpster

2003-11-09 05:41:39 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
Ok, let me explain what makes Basic Basic. It is *extremely* flexible,
***AN IMEDIATE MODE***!!! !!! !!!

None of the Microsoft BASIC non-visual compilers has an immediate mode. Their
later DOS versions came bundled with a development environment based on their
QBASIC interpreter, but their CP/M versions most definately did not.

Post by Leon Howell
If there are no line numbers, then I don't care what the copywrighted
name is, it's not Basic.

Lots of BASICs allow you to dispense with line numbers and use labels for
statement references.

What you are probably trying to say is that you prefer the older style BASIC
interpreters which use a line editor and hence require some way to refer to each
and every line in the program.

Nothing wrong with that, I agree it's especially useful when you are doing
some custom interface prototyping and need a way to twiddle a port or memory
location without having to go through the bother of editing, compiling, and then
running the test program.

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system.

Well, now, that's not true and the reason why you may think it is so is
because many machines came with BASIC in ROM and would start up as the default
program. In reality, there is an operating system which is also in ROM which
starts the machine and provides services to the BASIC interpreter which is also
in ROM. The operating system is very simple (basically, initialize the machine,
set up the service routines, and start the interpreter), usually occupies less
than 1024 bytes of memory and has no command line interface of its own. Such
services include handling the console input and output as well as mass storage
such as cassette tape. These things are not intrinsic to the BASIC interpreter.

Ever started up a TRS-80 Model III without disk drives? The requests for
"Cass?" and "Memory Size?" come from the operating system in ROM. The first one
sets up the cassette port for a particular operating speed, and the second one
requests the highest memory address to be used by the BASIC interpreter. This
value is passed to BASIC which uses it as its MAXRAM ceiling. This operating
system provides numerous machine services by way of subroutines at fixed memory
addresses. I think 0033H was the console output routine, but it's been many
years.

Another example - the Apple II machines when equipped with a Disk II drive
loaded an operating system from disk but otherwise operated in a similar fashion
to the same machine without disks. There is no "DOS command line" in the Apple
II disk operating system - the BASIC interpreter is the user interface and the
operating system provides the machine services which the interpreter uses to
carry out the users requests.

You can do this with many other languages such as Pascal or C or Forth.
However, BASIC was the easiest to learn and there was a common implementation
already on the market back in the late 70s/early 80s. One computer called the
Jupiter ACE came with Forth in ROM rather than BASIC.

Post by Leon Howell
CP/M is an OS, but not a language. You can program
in it with submit files, (I've heard the're like dos batch files) like
but there's that forced structure again.

The SUBMIT facility in CP/M was never meant to be a programming language per
se. Rather it was meant to be a way to automate specific operations as a
convenience to the user. The MSDOS batch facility was much the same thing but
then had lots of other things grafted onto it to try to make it competitive to
the shell scripts available in most Unix shells.

Holger Petersen

2003-11-09 14:55:46 UTC

Post by Phil Dumpster
Ever started up a TRS-80 Model III without disk drives? The requests for
"Cass?" and "Memory Size?" come from the operating system in ROM.

And you could load a Chess-game (SARGON if I remember).
It was one of the first copy-protected programms...

remembering old debug-sessions, Holger

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 15:44:36 UTC

<snip>

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system.

Such

Post by Phil Dumpster
services include handling the console input and output as well as mass storage
such as cassette tape. These things are not intrinsic to the BASIC interpreter.
Ever started up a TRS-80 Model III without disk drives? The requests for
"Cass?" and "Memory Size?" come from the operating system in ROM. The first one
sets up the cassette port for a particular operating speed, and the second one
requests the highest memory address to be used by the BASIC interpreter.

This

Post by Phil Dumpster
value is passed to BASIC which uses it as its MAXRAM ceiling. This operating
system provides numerous machine services by way of subroutines at fixed memory
addresses. I think 0033H was the console output routine, but it's been many
years.
Another example - the Apple II machines when equipped with a Disk II drive
loaded an operating system from disk but otherwise operated in a similar fashion
to the same machine without disks. There is no "DOS command line" in the Apple
II disk operating system - the BASIC interpreter is the user interface and the
operating system provides the machine services which the interpreter uses to
carry out the users requests.
You can do this with many other languages such as Pascal or C or Forth.
However, BASIC was the easiest to learn and there was a common

implementation

Post by Phil Dumpster
already on the market back in the late 70s/early 80s. One computer called the
Jupiter ACE came with Forth in ROM rather than BASIC.

<snip>

You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.

Any language can have enough extensions in it to be an OS. Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were extended
to be an OS. An OS just needs to be able to load and execute another
program, it often has the ability to allow the loaded programs to call
routines in the OS (especially I/O or file operations) but that is not
required.

Some computers had a Basic in ROM with a separate boot routine ROM (not an
OS), an easy example is the IBM PC class which used a basic in ROM when no
disk was found. The Basic had an OS integrated into it (a cassette OS), the
BIOS ROM did not. By the way the OS in BIOS does not stand for Operating
System, it stands for Basic Input Output System which is used by the OS it
contained the I/O routines for Basic & PC-DOS.

The fact that the IBM BIOS would check for different OS's and boot them in a
particular order (floppy, HD, ROM) makes it an OS only on the most technical
way. Basic, Forth, Assemblers such as ALS8, etc. allow for more
sophisticated control as an OS.

Exegete

2003-11-09 18:40:48 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system.

Well, now, that's not true and the reason why you may think it is so is
because many machines came with BASIC in ROM and would start up as the

default

Post by Phil Dumpster
program. In reality, there is an operating system which is also in ROM

which

Post by Phil Dumpster
starts the machine and provides services to the BASIC interpreter which is

also

Post by Phil Dumpster
in ROM. The operating system is very simple (basically, initialize the

machine,

Post by Phil Dumpster
set up the service routines, and start the interpreter), usually occupies

less

Post by Phil Dumpster
than 1024 bytes of memory and has no command line interface of its own.

Such

Post by Phil Dumpster
services include handling the console input and output as well as mass

storage

Post by Phil Dumpster
such as cassette tape. These things are not intrinsic to the BASIC

interpreter.

Post by Phil Dumpster
Ever started up a TRS-80 Model III without disk drives? The requests

for

Post by Phil Dumpster
"Cass?" and "Memory Size?" come from the operating system in ROM. The

first one

Post by Phil Dumpster
sets up the cassette port for a particular operating speed, and the second

one

Post by Phil Dumpster
requests the highest memory address to be used by the BASIC interpreter.

This

Post by Phil Dumpster
value is passed to BASIC which uses it as its MAXRAM ceiling. This

operating

Post by Phil Dumpster
system provides numerous machine services by way of subroutines at fixed

memory

Post by Phil Dumpster
addresses. I think 0033H was the console output routine, but it's been

many

Post by Phil Dumpster
years.
Another example - the Apple II machines when equipped with a Disk II

drive

Post by Phil Dumpster
loaded an operating system from disk but otherwise operated in a similar

fashion

Post by Phil Dumpster
to the same machine without disks. There is no "DOS command line" in the

Apple

Post by Phil Dumpster
II disk operating system - the BASIC interpreter is the user interface and

the

Post by Phil Dumpster
operating system provides the machine services which the interpreter uses

Post by Phil Dumpster
carry out the users requests.
You can do this with many other languages such as Pascal or C or Forth.
However, BASIC was the easiest to learn and there was a common

implementation

Post by Phil Dumpster
already on the market back in the late 70s/early 80s. One computer called

the

Post by Phil Dumpster
Jupiter ACE came with Forth in ROM rather than BASIC.

<snip>
You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.
Any language can have enough extensions in it to be an OS. Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were extended
to be an OS. An OS just needs to be able to load and execute another
program, it often has the ability to allow the loaded programs to call
routines in the OS (especially I/O or file operations) but that is not
required.
Some computers had a Basic in ROM with a separate boot routine ROM (not an
OS), an easy example is the IBM PC class which used a basic in ROM when no
disk was found. The Basic had an OS integrated into it (a cassette OS), the
BIOS ROM did not. By the way the OS in BIOS does not stand for Operating
System, it stands for Basic Input Output System which is used by the OS it
contained the I/O routines for Basic & PC-DOS.
The fact that the IBM BIOS would check for different OS's and boot them in a
particular order (floppy, HD, ROM) makes it an OS only on the most technical
way. Basic, Forth, Assemblers such as ALS8, etc. allow for more
sophisticated control as an OS.

But that doesn't make the "Cassette BASIC" of a PC an "OS", as much of
it's "OS" was the BIOS!

As stated by Phil, both IBM's "Cassette BASIC" and Apple II's BASIC were
user interfaces to the OS. Perhaps part of that was built into the
BASIC, but certainly not all of it.

And with IBM's BASICA and MS's GWBASIC, the OS was DOS, which was
accessed by the BASIC, or, if you exited BASIC, the Command.com. Apple
IIs, to my knowledge, never had a Command Processor like CP/M or DOS.

Roy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 19:42:49 UTC

<snip>

Post by Randy McLaughlin
You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.
Any language can have enough extensions in it to be an OS. Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were extended
to be an OS. An OS just needs to be able to load and execute another
program, it often has the ability to allow the loaded programs to call
routines in the OS (especially I/O or file operations) but that is not
required.
Some computers had a Basic in ROM with a separate boot routine ROM (not an
OS), an easy example is the IBM PC class which used a basic in ROM when no
disk was found. The Basic had an OS integrated into it (a cassette OS), the
BIOS ROM did not. By the way the OS in BIOS does not stand for Operating
System, it stands for Basic Input Output System which is used by the OS it
contained the I/O routines for Basic & PC-DOS.
The fact that the IBM BIOS would check for different OS's and boot them in a
particular order (floppy, HD, ROM) makes it an OS only on the most technical
way. Basic, Forth, Assemblers such as ALS8, etc. allow for more
sophisticated control as an OS.

But that doesn't make the "Cassette BASIC" of a PC an "OS", as much of
it's "OS" was the BIOS!
As stated by Phil, both IBM's "Cassette BASIC" and Apple II's BASIC were
user interfaces to the OS. Perhaps part of that was built into the
BASIC, but certainly not all of it.
And with IBM's BASICA and MS's GWBASIC, the OS was DOS, which was
accessed by the BASIC, or, if you exited BASIC, the Command.com. Apple
IIs, to my knowledge, never had a Command Processor like CP/M or DOS.
Roy

You totally misunderstand the Micro$loth Basics that have OS's integrated
in.

IBM's BIOS DOES NOT understand files/programs.

BASICA tied into the ROM Basic (GeeWhizBASIC did not) it was loaded from
disk, but then had access to the cassette OS built into the ROM Basic.

Micro$loth first wrote a basic that loaded from PTR and cassette. It's file
handling OS was not a separate program, it was the basic that was/is the OS.
They also had a disk basic that was a disk OS, sometimes called stand-alone
disk basic.

The basic was/is the command processor. All of the standard commands for an
OS was available. The disk Basic could list directory, delete, rename,
execute binary programs, etc. The tape/ROM version had commands appropriate
to the hardware.

The Apple II's DID have a command processor, it was called Basic.

A more interesting system to look for the OS is the Commie line (the OS was
kept in the disk drive, not the CPU).

Michael J. Mahon

2003-11-10 05:50:22 UTC

Randy McLaughlin wrote:

<snip>

Post by Randy McLaughlin
The Apple II's DID have a command processor, it was called Basic.

This discussion seems to be veering seriously off-topic,
but a misconception neds to be corrected.

Integer and Applesoft BASICs reside in ROM and know
nothing about disks (though they can load and save programs
from/to cassette tape).

When the disk OS is booted, it uses the Apple II's built-in
monitor's capability to re-direct character input and output
streams to plant an intercept (sometimes called a "wedge")
which gives the DOS code a chance to inspect all input and
output characters before BASIC sees them. In this way, it
is able to "augment" BASIC with typical disk OS commands.

The Apple II DOS is, therefore, the command processor, not
BASIC, although BASIC can, by "printing", send commands
to the DOS.

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

Richard

2003-11-10 17:56:32 UTC

Post by Exegete
But that doesn't make the "Cassette BASIC" of a PC an "OS", as much of
it's "OS" was the BIOS!

You totally misunderstand the Micro$loth Basics that have OS's integrated
in.
IBM's BIOS DOES NOT understand files/programs.

Irrelevant. With CP/M and MS-DOS the 'Operating System' consists of
the CCP, the BDOS and the BIOS plus utilities. It just happens that
IBM put a generalised BIOS in ROM and that PC-DOS only needs a small
interface to this. On many other machines the MS-DOS BIOS needs to be
as extensive as it is in CP/M and the hardware only has a small Boot
Loader and perhaps a Monitor.

This means that much of the 'Operating System built into BASIC' is
simply references to the BIOS routines which actually do the work.

Your reference to BIOS not understanding files is irrelevant and
misleading. Nor does the BASIC ROM. ROM BASIC can't access 'files'
for the simple reason that the BIOS doesn't understand them. Nor does
the ROM BASIC understand 'programs' except as ASCII text source or
tokenised source.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
BASICA tied into the ROM Basic (GeeWhizBASIC did not) it was loaded from
disk, but then had access to the cassette OS built into the ROM Basic.

BASICA used the ROM on a line-by-line basis for executing the code.
The disk and file BASIC language element routines were in the
BASICA.COM program and this interfaced to MS-DOS for file access. The
Cassette routines still used the BIOS to access the tapes.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Micro$loth first wrote a basic that loaded from PTR and cassette. It's file
handling OS was not a separate program, it was the basic that was/is the OS.

There was an MS OS that had BASIC and file handling built in. It was
'Stand-Alone BASIC' for an NCR machine (7600?). MS BASIC for the 8080
did not have 'file handling'. AppleSoft BASIC used the Apple ROM OS
routines for file handling. IBM ROM BASIC did not have file handling.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
They also had a disk basic that was a disk OS, sometimes called stand-alone
disk basic.

They had an OS with integrated BASIC called 'stand-alone BASIC'.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
The basic was/is the command processor. All of the standard commands for an
OS was available. The disk Basic could list directory, delete, rename,
execute binary programs, etc.

If by Disk BASIC you mean AppleSoft or BASICA.COM, then no. The
'standard commands' were not done by the 'ROM-BASIC OS' at all, but by
BASICA passing the command to DOS.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
The tape/ROM version had commands appropriate
to the hardware.

Name one !! They could do a LOAD or a SAVE, for which the BIOS
actually did the work.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
The Apple II's DID have a command processor, it was called Basic.

No. It actually had a command processor. The Apple II could use
IntegerBASIC, or AppleSoft BASIC or LOGO or Forth as its language
system, or none of these. The system OS was separate.

I can see how someone could be confused over this though, as it would
appear to be the same thing.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
A more interesting system to look for the OS is the Commie line (the OS was
kept in the disk drive, not the CPU).

And so this was 'part of BASIC' in what way ?

Richard

2003-11-09 23:03:21 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system.

You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.

That is a purely semantic argument. There may be commands in the ROM
that can be used in an 'OS like way' and these may be used by BASIC
programs. This does not mean that 'BASIC is an OS'.

It is also arguable whether a few keywords can be usefully called an
'OS', some even argue that MS-DOS can barely be called an OS, it is
just a loader with some utility programs.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Any language can have enough extensions in it to be an OS.

Just because they are in the same ROM as the language does not make
them part of the language.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were extended
to be an OS.

And UCSD Pascal.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
An OS just needs to be able to load and execute another
program, it often has the ability to allow the loaded programs to call
routines in the OS (especially I/O or file operations) but that is not
required.

Well if you degrade the term OS down to that level then just about
anything could be made into being an 'Operating System', even a ROM
monitor can do that.

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 23:39:35 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
One of the biggest advantages of Basic is that it can be used as an
operating system.

You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.

That is a purely semantic argument. There may be commands in the ROM
that can be used in an 'OS like way' and these may be used by BASIC
programs. This does not mean that 'BASIC is an OS'.
It is also arguable whether a few keywords can be usefully called an
'OS', some even argue that MS-DOS can barely be called an OS, it is
just a loader with some utility programs.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Any language can have enough extensions in it to be an OS.

Just because they are in the same ROM as the language does not make
them part of the language.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were extended
to be an OS.

And UCSD Pascal.

UCSD Pascal was NOT an OS, it was/is a language. The OS is written in
Pascal, the OS is called the p-system.

Well if you degrade the term OS down to that level then just about
anything could be made into being an 'Operating System', even a ROM
monitor can do that.

You obviously have a definition of what an OS is that is not used on this
planet. Please share with us poor idiots your definition of what a real OS
must have to be an OS. I must assume that if MS-DOS falls short then CP/M
has no chance of being an OS and NS-DOS being even simpler is who knows
what.

An OS needs to be no more than a monitor that allows the user to select what
program to execute. It does not matter whether the programs are in ROM,
tape, disk, etc. There is no definition that requires any particular magic
words (such as NS-DOS go), just typing the program name, using a mouse, or
even flipping sense switches.

If a Basic interpreter is used as a base for an OS it simplifies development
since it already has a parser, etc.

Dosius

2003-11-10 05:49:07 UTC

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were

extended

Post by Randy McLaughlin
to be an OS.

And UCSD Pascal.

UCSD Pascal was NOT an OS, it was/is a language. The OS is written in
Pascal, the OS is called the p-system.

Apple's OS for the ][ based on UCSD Pascal was called Apple Pascal
(according to their own system disks, which supported the Pascal OS).

-uso.

Richard

2003-11-10 18:12:05 UTC

To get back on topic I have never heard of any OS that was an extension of
Pascal.

No, but then you seem to have very concrete and fixed ideas about what
is, or is not, 'an extension', 'integrated', or 'built-in', and seem
to be able to proclaim exactly whether it is or is not.

In fact with MS 'Stand Alone BASIC' and with Apple ][ with AppleSoft
BASIC the distinction between the OS and the BASIC is almost exactly
as it is between the p-system routines and the language (originally
and usually Pascal).

Yet with one you proclaim them as being 'OS in the BASIC' and the
other you proclaim as being entirely distinct.

Being adament does not make you right.

Richard

2003-11-10 08:46:29 UTC

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Assemblers like
ALS8 and some versions of Forth are examples of languages that were

extended

Post by Randy McLaughlin
to be an OS.

And UCSD Pascal.

UCSD Pascal was NOT an OS, it was/is a language. The OS is written in
Pascal, the OS is called the p-system.

So you have it that 'languages are extended to be an OS', yet that is
_not_ the case with UCSD.

Post by Richard
Well if you degrade the term OS down to that level then just about
anything could be made into being an 'Operating System', even a ROM
monitor can do that.

You obviously have a definition of what an OS is that is not used on this
planet.

Do I ? You seem to have a definition that leads to almost anything on
the planet can be one.

Post by Randy McLaughlin
Please share with us poor idiots your definition of what a real OS
must have to be an OS.

Well here is one definition that _some_ on this planet _do_ use:

"""Operating System (OS) - A big complicated computer program that
lets multiple simultaneously executing big complicated computer
programs coexist peacefully on one physical computer. The operating
system is also responsible for hiding the details of the computer
hardware from the application programmers, e.g., letting a programmer
say "I want to write ABC into a file named XYZ" without the programmer
having to know how many disk drives the computer has or what company
manufactured those drives. Examples of operating systems are Unix and
Windows NT. Examples of things that try to be operating systems but
mostly fail to fulfill the "coexist peacefully" condition are Windows
and the Macintosh OS."""

Post by Randy McLaughlin
I must assume that if MS-DOS falls short then CP/M
has no chance of being an OS and NS-DOS being even simpler is who knows
what.

Exactly, see you _can_ learn things.

Phil Dumpster

2003-11-10 12:07:18 UTC

Post by Phil Dumpster
Ever started up a TRS-80 Model III without disk drives? The requests

for

Post by Phil Dumpster
"Cass?" and "Memory Size?" come from the operating system in ROM. The

first one

Post by Phil Dumpster
sets up the cassette port for a particular operating speed, and the second

one

Post by Phil Dumpster
requests the highest memory address to be used by the BASIC interpreter.

This

Post by Phil Dumpster
value is passed to BASIC which uses it as its MAXRAM ceiling. This

operating

Post by Phil Dumpster
system provides numerous machine services by way of subroutines at fixed

memory

Post by Phil Dumpster
addresses. I think 0033H was the console output routine, but it's been

many

Post by Phil Dumpster
years.
You can do this with many other languages such as Pascal or C or Forth.
However, BASIC was the easiest to learn and there was a common

implementation

Post by Phil Dumpster
already on the market back in the late 70s/early 80s. One computer called

the

Post by Phil Dumpster
Jupiter ACE came with Forth in ROM rather than BASIC.

<snip>
You obviously do not understand that the OS used by many systems is an
extended Basic.

Randy, I'm not even going to respond to your insult by getting into an
arguement with you on something so fundamental in the evolution of
microcomputers and yet so insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe.
Your knowledge of computer science is so beneath mine and your attitude towards
people who have more knowledge on this subject than you do makes trying to tell
you anything a complete waste of time.

John Elliott

2003-10-30 22:06:40 UTC

Richard <***@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
: I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used. It may be
: that this was not actually a limit of CP/M-86 itself but was all that
: an IBM PC could use at the time CP/M-86 was released.

The original PC BIOS wouldn't support more than 544K memory. This was
fixed in the 10/27/82 version.
<http://cma.zdnet.com/book/upgraderepair/ch23/ch23.htm#Heading6>

I don't know if this is the cause of the CP/M-86 limitation or just a
coincidence.

--
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)

bud

2003-10-31 08:06:42 UTC

=A0=A0=A0=A0The original PC BIOS wouldn't support
more than 544K memory. This was fixed in
the 10/27/82 version.
<http://cma.zdnet.com/book/upgraderepair/ch23/ch23.htm#Heading6>
=A0=A0=A0=A0I don't know if this is the cause of the
CP/M-86 limitation or just a coincidence.

From memory, the manual for my CP/M-86 1.1 says that the original
limitation was due to the PC. The limitation was removed from CP/M
because it was removed from the PC.

salaam,
dowcom

--
The posted e-mail address is being converted to a spam-trap. To e-mail
me, add the character zero to "dowcom". i.e.: dowcomZEROATwebtvDOTnet.

http://community.webtv.net/dowcom/DOWCOMSAMSTRADGUIDE

MSWindows is television,=85 Linux is RADAR.

Phil Dumpster

2003-11-09 07:28:22 UTC

Post by Richard
Interestingly the DRI version for the PC could only use 544 Kb of RAM
while the XT version could use 640Kb. The XT version could access the
IBM PC XT hard disks while earlier versions could access hard disks on
the IBM PC using a Xebec controller only. PC-DOS 1 could not access
hard disks at all.
In what way were these not 'update and maintain' ?
I don't fully understand why only 544Kb RAM could be used. It may be
that this was not actually a limit of CP/M-86 itself but was all that
an IBM PC could use at the time CP/M-86 was released. Original IBM
PCs (Model As) were physically limited to 256Kb max even with several
RAM cards due to bus designs. The Model B (which I have here) used a
different planar layout to allow full addressing of RAM, but perhaps
it could only be fitted with 544Kb using contemporary mamory cards in
the number of slots available.

The 544K number is sorta erroneous, the original IBM 5150 Personal Computer
had the memory map of the 8088 split right down the middle, the lower 512k for
RAM and the upper 512k for the system, which includes ROM and video memory.

Now, remember this was in 1981 and the thought of a desktop machine have that
much RAM was a luxury beyond the grasp of many computer owners of the time. The
business standard was a Z80 with a max of 64K of memory. The base price of an
IBM PC with 64K and one disk drive was $3000. This memory map seemed like an
appropriate approach at the time. Today it looks different. Apple Computer
would do something similar in 2 years time with the Macintosh, but in that case
they split the 68K memory map into four equal pieces, with RAM in the lowest 4
megabytes only.

While the original 5150 PC had a design limit of 512K RAM and provisions on
the main logic board for 64K (in 4 banks of 16K) there really wasn't anything
keeping you from putting in more memory on the expansion bus, with one
exception. The POST (power on self test) memory validation program in the
startup portion of the BIOS ROM would report in the BIOS data segment (located
above the interrupt table, absolute address 0400H) that the machine had 544K if
it had more than 512K of RAM. That's where the 544K "limit" came from.

Incidentally, there was a DIP switch which was set to indicate maximum memory
in 32K increments. This switch is read by the BIOS during POST and is used as
the limit to search for RAM. Setting this switch to indicate more than 512K
would result in the BIOS reporting 544K.

Since this was early in the product cycle of the IBM PC, software developers
outside of IBM were initially loath to retouch the maximum RAM parameter because
IBM told them not to. As some users began filling their machines with memory,
they started running up against the limit. A look through IBM's technical
literature on the BIOS showed where this value was stored, and a few seconds
with DEBUG would allow programs that checked this value to access memory all the
way up to 704K if it was present. (704K is the start of the monochrome frame
buffer.) After that, IBM modified the BIOS to allow 640K of RAM as a
compromise.

You can still alter this value as long as your machine has RAM in the A0000H
to AFFFFH region and end up with 704K of conventional memory. The bytes in
question are 0040:0013H and 0040:0014H which indicate in Intel little-endian
form the number of kilobytes of conventional memory. With an MDA card you can
use 02C0H (704K) and with a CGA card and 32K more RAM you can use 02E0 (736K.)

Exegete

2003-11-09 18:34:45 UTC

The 544K number is sorta erroneous, the original IBM 5150 Personal Computer
had the memory map of the 8088 split right down the middle, the lower 512k for
RAM and the upper 512k for the system, which includes ROM and video memory.
Now, remember this was in 1981 and the thought of a desktop machine have that
much RAM was a luxury beyond the grasp of many computer owners of the time. The
business standard was a Z80 with a max of 64K of memory. The base price of an
IBM PC with 64K and one disk drive was $3000. This memory map seemed like an
appropriate approach at the time. Today it looks different. Apple Computer
would do something similar in 2 years time with the Macintosh, but in that case
they split the 68K memory map into four equal pieces, with RAM in the lowest 4
megabytes only.
While the original 5150 PC had a design limit of 512K RAM and provisions on
the main logic board for 64K (in 4 banks of 16K) there really wasn't anything
keeping you from putting in more memory on the expansion bus, with one
exception. The POST (power on self test) memory validation program in the
startup portion of the BIOS ROM would report in the BIOS data segment (located
above the interrupt table, absolute address 0400H) that the machine had 544K if
it had more than 512K of RAM. That's where the 544K "limit" came from.
Incidentally, there was a DIP switch which was set to indicate maximum memory
in 32K increments. This switch is read by the BIOS during POST and is used as
the limit to search for RAM. Setting this switch to indicate more than 512K
would result in the BIOS reporting 544K.
Since this was early in the product cycle of the IBM PC, software developers
outside of IBM were initially loath to retouch the maximum RAM parameter because
IBM told them not to. As some users began filling their machines with memory,
they started running up against the limit. A look through IBM's technical
literature on the BIOS showed where this value was stored, and a few seconds
with DEBUG would allow programs that checked this value to access memory all the
way up to 704K if it was present. (704K is the start of the monochrome frame
buffer.) After that, IBM modified the BIOS to allow 640K of RAM as a
compromise.
You can still alter this value as long as your machine has RAM in the A0000H
to AFFFFH region and end up with 704K of conventional memory. The bytes in
question are 0040:0013H and 0040:0014H which indicate in Intel little-endian
form the number of kilobytes of conventional memory. With an MDA card you can
use 02C0H (704K) and with a CGA card and 32K more RAM you can use 02E0 (736K.)

Not to dispute you, but some think the "640K barrier" had something to
do with DOS. DOS could access up to one meg of RAM. DOS would access all
RAM until it ran into the video memory, which was located where you
stated above.

Roy

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-09 19:48:18 UTC

"Exegete" <***@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:3fae88ca$***@corp.newsgroups.com...

<snip>

Post by Exegete
Not to dispute you, but some think the "640K barrier" had something to
do with DOS. DOS could access up to one meg of RAM. DOS would access all
RAM until it ran into the video memory, which was located where you
stated above.
Roy

You do not understand. DOS does not check memory, it just asks the BIOS for
top of memory.

The 640K barrier was stupid and DOS on "nonstandard" was not a limit. DOS
on S1000 systems would handle one meg.

DOS does not require a memory mapped video.

Exegete

2003-11-10 03:04:13 UTC

You do not understand. DOS does not check memory, it just asks the BIOS for
top of memory.

I'm not so sure that you understand. DOS required contiguous memory.
IBM's hardware design prevented DOS from having a one meg contiguous
address space.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
The 640K barrier was stupid and DOS on "nonstandard" was not a limit.

You're right. I don't understand. That last phrase at least!

DOS

Post by Michael J. Mahon
on S1000 systems would handle one meg.

Umm, I said that. See above.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
DOS does not require a memory mapped video.

I never said it did. IBM's hardware design is what prevented DOS from
accessing a full meg of RAM.

Roy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Randy McLaughlin

2003-11-10 03:35:34 UTC

You do not understand. DOS does not check memory, it just asks the BIOS for
top of memory.

I'm not so sure that you understand. DOS required contiguous memory.
IBM's hardware design prevented DOS from having a one meg contiguous
address space.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
The 640K barrier was stupid and DOS on "nonstandard" was not a limit.

You're right. I don't understand. That last phrase at least!
DOS

Post by Michael J. Mahon
on S100 systems would handle one meg.

Umm, I said that. See above.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
DOS does not require a memory mapped video.

I never said it did. IBM's hardware design is what prevented DOS from
accessing a full meg of RAM.
Roy

Actually you said:

"DOS would access all RAM until it ran into the video memory".

As I stated DOS does not check for memory, DOS does not access video memory,
DOS does not care about video memory. Even the CLS function does not access
the video memory, except through the BIOS.

My point is that you stated that DOS cares about video memory, the point may
seem technical but you made it appear that DOS does something that it does
not do. I agree that IBM's design limited the address space.

Exegete

2003-11-10 13:53:11 UTC

You do not understand. DOS does not check memory, it just asks the BIOS

for

Post by Michael J. Mahon
top of memory.

I'm not so sure that you understand. DOS required contiguous memory.
IBM's hardware design prevented DOS from having a one meg contiguous
address space.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
The 640K barrier was stupid and DOS on "nonstandard" was not a limit.

You're right. I don't understand. That last phrase at least!
DOS

Post by Michael J. Mahon
on S100 systems would handle one meg.

Umm, I said that. See above.

Post by Michael J. Mahon
DOS does not require a memory mapped video.

I never said it did. IBM's hardware design is what prevented DOS from
accessing a full meg of RAM.
Roy

"DOS would access all RAM until it ran into the video memory".
As I stated DOS does not check for memory, DOS does not access video memory,

No shit buckwheat. I DID NOT say that DOS checked for memory, did I? YOU
did. I said that DOS accessed all the RAM until there was a break. That
break is the IBM video RAM, which is not contiguous with the "user" RAM.

Sheesh. Learn to read if you wish to dispute with people. There's
nothing wrong with disagreeing with what someone says, but you look
really dumb disagreeing with something that someone DID NOT say.

Roy

Post by Randy McLaughlin
DOS does not care about video memory. Even the CLS function does not access
the video memory, except through the BIOS.
My point is that you stated that DOS cares about video memory, the point may
seem technical but you made it appear that DOS does something that it does
not do. I agree that IBM's design limited the address space.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

wild bill

2003-10-24 16:50:57 UTC

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:11:04 +0200, "Salle Arobase"

Post by Salle Arobase
In this case, Digital Research made a later version of MP/M-86
named Concurrent CP/M,

While CCP/M derived from MP/M it wasn't a 'version' of it.

I don't know if you know it, but Digital Research decided to develop
Concurrent CP/M, not CP/M-86, when MS-DOS was adopted by
most IBM Clown users.
As far as I know, CP/M-86 was never maintained nor updated by
Digital Research.
In contrast, Concurrent CP/M (son of MP/M-86) certainly was...

Seems to me, there were different AUTHORS involved in the
various ''versions'' of DRI operating systems. Seems to me,
Rolander had a lot to do with MP/M86. Don't remember ever
hearing who did most of the CP/M86 work, but don't think it
was him. I'd guess whoever it was (CP/M86) moved on to
something completely different. Didn't Kildall do most of the
MP/M80 coding? Then pass off MP/M86 to Rolander?

Concurrent was WRITTEN to be able to run MSDOS stuffs.
I think from the ground up. Don't think it was something
tacked onto existing anything.

Could be I remember some things wrong.

Bill

Richard

2003-10-24 22:07:36 UTC

Post by wild bill
Concurrent was WRITTEN to be able to run MSDOS stuffs.
I think from the ground up. Don't think it was something
tacked onto existing anything.

No. Concurrent CP/M-86 versions 1, 2 and 3.1 could do nothing with
MS-DOS programs or disks. At some point between 3.1 and 3.2 an add-in
module called PCMODE could be configured into the OS to give MS-DOS
1.x emulation. On the ICL PC2 and Quattro CCP/M-86 this had to be
configured in specifically. As well as running MS-DOS .COM files (all
that MS-DOS 1.x ran) it also allowed access to IBM-PC 360 Kb disks
(and 160, 180 and 320). I suspect that this was specific to ICL as it
had to double step the 80 track 720Kb drives used by these machines.
It was supposed to be read-only access, but it could write to freshly
formatted disks without too much problems.

You should note that when Concurrent-CP/M-86 was released, MS-DOS 1.x
was just a CP/M clone for the 8086 but had no hard drive support, no
directories and no user areas. Programs were just .COM binary images.
Running 'MS-DOS stuff' was a trivial recompile and most software was
available on both MS-DOS and CP/M-86.

CCP/M-86 issue 3.2 included PCMODE in the distribution. The next
version was changed to the name Concurrent-DOS 4.1 as it incorporated
an enchanced DOS emulation module including support for FAT hard disk
partitions and directories and MS-DOS 2.x programs including .EXEs.

Eventually CDOS 6.x and -386 became IBM PC only and access to CP/M
media became an add-on.

wild bill

2003-10-27 01:24:21 UTC

Post by wild bill
Concurrent was WRITTEN to be able to run MSDOS stuffs.
I think from the ground up. Don't think it was something
tacked onto existing anything.

You should note that when Concurrent-CP/M-86 was released, MS-DOS 1.x
was just a CP/M clone for the 8086 but had no hard drive support, no
directories and no user areas. Programs were just .COM binary images.
Running 'MS-DOS stuff' was a trivial recompile and most software was
available on both MS-DOS and CP/M-86.

You should note that, assuming MSDOS had ANYTHING to
do with 86-DOS, that 86-DOS was already running on hard
drives in the Seattle Computer Gazelle computer system.

Whatever went on, in the 'meld' of 86-DOS, parts
of CP/M (in particular, the API), and whatever the
'source' of the FAT, some interesting things seem
to have happened.

86-DOS could support hundreds of megabytes
of hard drive space - no 8 megs or 32 megs limit.
Personal Computer DOS version 1 - none, apparently.

It sure looks like IBM wanted a crippled and
limited operating system. They wanted LESS
than 86-DOS already was.

There WERE companies putting hard drives on
DOS 1.x versions; I remember Davong in particular.

Anyway my point was that various DRI operating
systems seemed to involve completely different
authors/developers, not the same bunch of people
moving from product to product. And maybe this
accounts for the some differences in programming
style and functions.

Bill

Richard

2003-10-27 07:28:09 UTC

Post by wild bill

Post by Richard
You should note that when Concurrent-CP/M-86 was released, MS-DOS 1.x
was just a CP/M clone for the 8086 but had no hard drive support, no
directories and no user areas. Programs were just .COM binary images.
Running 'MS-DOS stuff' was a trivial recompile and most software was
available on both MS-DOS and CP/M-86.

You should note that, assuming MSDOS had ANYTHING to
do with 86-DOS,

The path from SCP's QDOS/86-DOS to PC-DOS/MS-DOS is well documented
and unarguable. The path from CP/M 1.4 to QDOS (via disassembler and
Intel's 8080 -> 8086 converter) is somewhat less provable.

Post by wild bill
that 86-DOS was already running on hard
drives in the Seattle Computer Gazelle computer system.

I have previously seen somewhere that Tim Paterson would build QDOS on
a Z80 CP/M system and then switch processor cards to the 8086 and
reboot. This indicates that QDOS was using CP/M file system.

Post by wild bill
Whatever went on, in the 'meld' of 86-DOS, parts
of CP/M (in particular, the API), and whatever the
'source' of the FAT, some interesting things seem
to have happened.

The source of the FAT system is also well documented. It was first
implemented by MS in 'DEC Stand Alone BASIC'. Its authorship is well
established and is unarguable.

Post by wild bill
86-DOS could support hundreds of megabytes
of hard drive space - no 8 megs or 32 megs limit.

I have seen that claim made before, but no substanciation of it. It
may, or may not, be true. There is no documented support for this
that I have seen. Certainly 86-DOS was being sold before the IBM PC
and PC-DOS was announced. see Lomas ad in August 1981 Byte. Richard
Lomas was offering 86-DOS (which at the time was _not_ MS-DOS) with
floppy based systems only. The Winchester disk option required
MP/M-86.

Post by wild bill
Personal Computer DOS version 1 - none, apparently.

That is correct. CP/M-86 could use the Xebec controller card in an
IBM PC, but PC-DOS could not.

Post by wild bill
It sure looks like IBM wanted a crippled and
limited operating system. They wanted LESS
than 86-DOS already was.

That is speculation that 86-DOS could support hard disks _except_ when
using CP/M media.

Post by wild bill
There WERE companies putting hard drives on
DOS 1.x versions; I remember Davong in particular.

MS-DOS was an OEM system, originally licenced from SCP, later
purchased outright. PC-DOS was one licencee version of this. Other
companies could implement MS-DOS as they wished, including
implementing some form of hard drive support. FAT12 was limited to
4096 sectors, so by making a sector size of 1024 byte they could use 4
Mb drives.

Much the same happened later when MS-DOS and PC-DOS still had the
alleged '32 Mbyte drive limit' (actually partition limit). When
Microsoft claimed it had eventually 'broken the 32Mb limit' with
MS-DOS 4.01, this not only was code written by IBM but Compaq and Wyse
had been selling their OEM versions since 3.1 with much larger
partition sizes and up to 504 Mbyte disks.

Post by wild bill
Anyway my point was that various DRI operating
systems seemed to involve completely different
authors/developers, not the same bunch of people
moving from product to product. And maybe this
accounts for the some differences in programming
style and functions.

The original CP/M was written by Gary. Concurrent wound up being
developed in the UK at some point. It is quite possible that FlexOS
and GEM were different teams yet again.

Salle Arobase

2003-10-28 13:26:36 UTC

My, oh my, it is astonishing how some subjects unrelated
to CP/M keep reappearing in this comp.os.cpm Newsgroup,
like 86-DOS.

Since I am one of the few people who provided some
info about it a few months ago, I humbly resubmit it
(I am afraid that not everybody has read it).

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

86DOS.TXT
---------

For some unknown reason, there has been lots of mentions of
86-DOS in the comp.os.cpm Newsgroup.

It so happen that, while re-reading an article in an old issue
of BYTE, I have just seen an ad for it (BYTE, August 1980,
p.173).

For those who don't have this old issue, here is the text of
this advertisement:

"Z-80 Source Code --> $1385 --> 8086 Object Code

86-DOS (tm) 8086 Operating System -- $95

1. Read Z-80 source code file written in CP/M (*) format and
convert to 86-DOS format.

2. Translator program translates Z-80 source code to 8086 source
code.

3. Resident assembler assembles the translated 8086 source code
to 8086 object code.

4. Minor hand correction and optimization. (A recent 19K Z-80
program translation took us about four hours to fix up. Even
without optimization, it ran twice as fast as the original!)

86-DOS (tm)
-----------

This operating system is the first complete package of resident
software for the 8086 offered in the general marketplace. 86-DOS
provides a high-level interface between the program and its
hardware environment, with functions such as console I/O of
characters and strings, and random and sequential reading and
writing of named disk files.

A multi-level hierarchy, made possible by the hardware address
relocation inherent in the 8086, allows programs to run other
programs. Complete error trapping of otherwise "fatal" errors
(e.g., disk hard errors) is possible, allowing a running program
to remain in control, or to transfer control to a higher level
in the hierarchy.

The package includes an 8086 resident assembler, a Z-80 to 8086
source code translator, a utility to read files written in CP/M
format and convert them to 86-DOS format, a line editor, and
disk maintenance utilities. Price (registered SCP CPU owners) --
$95. Others -- $195.

The remaining $1290 buys our 8-MHz 16-bit 8086 2-card CPU set to
run it on.

Also requires S-100 Bus Mainframe, 8-bit or 16-bit static memory
(yours or ours), disk subsystem.

Seattle Computers Products, Inc.
1114 Industry Drive, Seattle, WA. 98188
(206) 575-1830

(*) CP/M is a registered trademark of Digital Research Corp."

EOF

Barry Watzman

2003-10-22 03:58:46 UTC

Re: "Unfortunately, no copies of the binaries of the files of
ConcurrentCP/M Release 3.1 for the IBM PC have been found, so far."

I have a complete, full retail package of CCP/M 3.1 for the IBM-PC with
both manuals and 5.25" diskettes in essentially new condition. I don't
know if the diskettes are readable at this point or not. The package is
obviously about 20 years old, has either never been used or only used
once or twice, it's been in my possession since new.

Barry Watzman

Anonymous Guy

2003-10-22 09:44:49 UTC

Post by Barry Watzman
I have a complete, full retail package of CCP/M 3.1 for the IBM-PC
with both manuals and 5.25" diskettes in essentially new condition.
I don't know if the diskettes are readable at this point or not.
The package is obviously about 20 years old, has either never been
used or only used once or twice, it's been in my possession since
new.

I, too, have "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM." The thing is,
though, it's a bit eccentric.

It was distributed on two 5.25-inch disks: Disk 1 is the "Boot
Disk," and Disk 2 is the "System Disk."

In order to boot CCP/M-86, Disk 1 must be in Drive A:, and
Disk 2 must be in Drive B:.

The boot process is "hard-wired" to check for the proper disk
in the proper drive. If the requisite disk isn't found in
its appropriate drive, the boot fails.

In order to conveniently boot "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM"
on a contemporary machine from a single 1.44 meg floppy, a bit
of hacking should probably be done to eliminate the drive/disk
checking.

Any volunteers...?

Steve Dubrovich

2003-10-22 16:28:18 UTC

Post by Anonymous Guy

I, too, have "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM." The thing is,
though, it's a bit eccentric.
It was distributed on two 5.25-inch disks: Disk 1 is the "Boot
Disk," and Disk 2 is the "System Disk."
In order to boot CCP/M-86, Disk 1 must be in Drive A:, and
Disk 2 must be in Drive B:.
The boot process is "hard-wired" to check for the proper disk
in the proper drive. If the requisite disk isn't found in
its appropriate drive, the boot fails.
In order to conveniently boot "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM"
on a contemporary machine from a single 1.44 meg floppy, a bit
of hacking should probably be done to eliminate the drive/disk
checking.
Any volunteers...?

It also clobbers all the INT vectors like CP/M-86, according to the
source. It also would need the 'AT-Patch'.

Richard

2003-10-22 18:47:43 UTC

Post by Anonymous Guy
I, too, have "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM." The thing is,
though, it's a bit eccentric.
It was distributed on two 5.25-inch disks: Disk 1 is the "Boot
Disk," and Disk 2 is the "System Disk."
In order to boot CCP/M-86, Disk 1 must be in Drive A:, and
Disk 2 must be in Drive B:.
The boot process is "hard-wired" to check for the proper disk
in the proper drive. If the requisite disk isn't found in
its appropriate drive, the boot fails.
In order to conveniently boot "Concurrent CP/M-86 For The IBM"
on a contemporary machine from a single 1.44 meg floppy, a bit
of hacking should probably be done to eliminate the drive/disk
checking.

That must be "for the IBM PC" and not "for the IBM PC XT" which would
install itself on the hard drive.

What version number does it have ?

Steve Dubrovich

2003-10-22 16:25:27 UTC

Post by Barry Watzman
Re: "Unfortunately, no copies of the binaries of the files of
ConcurrentCP/M Release 3.1 for the IBM PC have been found, so far."
I have a complete, full retail package of CCP/M 3.1 for the IBM-PC with
both manuals and 5.25" diskettes in essentially new condition. I don't
know if the diskettes are readable at this point or not. The package is
obviously about 20 years old, has either never been used or only used
once or twice, it's been in my possession since new.
Barry Watzman

It would be nice of you to donate the disk images to Gaby's site, if
you could. The source is there, but to have original disk images
there would be useful to check the boot loader scheme and to compare a
build for the sources against your originals.

Richard

2003-10-19 19:03:39 UTC

Post by Salle Arobase
All the MP/Ms (8-bit and 16-bit) use terminals connected
via PHYSICAL links.

Does the built-in display & Keyboard count as a "physical" link?

No.

That depends entirely on the implementation. MP/M-86 on the IBM-PC
used the memory mapped display as a terminal.

Post by Leon Howell
So It's impossible to use MP/M-86 on a Tandy 1400LT with no serial
terminal? Isn't there any kind of patch? (Stupid question:Would GSX
help?) I only need one "terminal", It's the multitasking I really
want.

You would need a version tailored to the machine, or write your own
XIOS. MP/M-86 does do multitasking at one screen, but poorly. Ctrl-D
gives a new comnmand prompt and allows switching back to the original,
but doesn't stop displays from any of the programs being intermixed on
the screen. It is useful for background tasks, but needs multiple
terminals to run multiple foreground tasks effectively. This is why
Concurrent-CP/M-86 is such an improvement.

2003-09-23 13:47:48 UTC

ALTOS.TXT
---------

"Multi-user microcomputer"
Interface Age, October 1981, p.134

(Retyped by Emmanuel ROCHE.)

The Altos ACS 8000-10 combines 10M bytes of hard-disk storage
with floppy disk or magnetic tape back-up media. The Zilog
Z-80-based system integrates the Altos single-board computer and
DMA controller with an 8-in. hard disk into a compact unit.
Mounted in a standard 19-in. rack, the system has 208K bytes of
internal RAM, giving enough power to accomodate up to four users
and expand with the needs of the small business. The system has
six programmable serial ports, an RS-432 communication port and
handles network data rates at up to 800K baud. It is based on
CP/M and MP/M operating systems, making the computer compatible
with most end-user (application) software. Price: $8,500 with
single-sided floppy disk, $9,500 with double-sided floppy disk
and $10,990 with magnetic tape cassette. Altos Computer Systems.

"Suppliers of multiprocessor equipment"
Interface Age, June 1982, p.92

For personal computers and multiprocessor systems operating in
the CP/M and MP/M environment, Digital Research has developed
several network-oriented operating systems: CP/NET and three
related systems, CP/NOS, MP/NET, and MP/NOS.

CP/NET allows microcomputers to share and transfer disk files,
to share printers and consoles, and to share programs and data
bases. It consists of masters running on MP/M and slaves running
on CP/M. The masters are hosts that manage the shared resources
that can be accessed by the network slaves.

CP/NOS is a diskless CP/M that can be stored in solid state ROM
-- operating with a console, memory, and network interface.

MP/NET is a complete MP/M system with an embedded network
interface. Like CP/NET, it allows local devices to be
re-assigned to the network. MP/NET configurations allow MP/M
systems as both requesters and servers with CP/M requesters.

MP/NOS contains the real-time portion (RTM) of MP/M without
local disk facilities. Like CP/NOS, MP/NOS performs all disk
functions through the network.

A unique operating system configuration, MP/M-8/16 by G&G
Engineering (San Leandro, CA) is a proprietary implementation of
Digital Research's MP/M-86. It allows for simultaneous running
of both 8- and 16-bit processors in a multiuser, multiprocessing
environment. The system is used in conjunction with the
8085/8088 CPU board by Godbout (Oakland, CA).

EOF

2003-09-23 13:51:15 UTC

Leon Howell

2003-09-22 23:52:16 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
I think I've had about enough of the i80x86/8.

On the other hand,I can't afford international shipping, but I do have
a Tandy 1400LT, with a V20 and 768k. How much ram do CP/M-86,
PCP/M-86, CP/M-86+, and MP/M-86 take? What about DR-DOS (a.k.a.
Concurrent CP/M-86) & GEM, (especialy an early version from before
Apple sued DR) or IBM PC/IX?

How many applications can these multitask? Will the OS and a good
application package fit on a 720k floppy?

John Elliott

2003-09-10 16:25:41 UTC

Leon Howell <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Please excuse my inexcuseable ignorance, but could someone please tell
: me *exactly* what CP/M+ & PCP/M do that CP/M 2.2 doesn't?

: I know CP/M+ can handle tons of ram, but how much, and is it really
: faster?

CP/M Plus supports the use of more than 64k. In theory it could use up
to about 15Mb or so (depending on how you set up the memory paging); most
implementations give it 128-160k and use whatever else they have as a
RAMdisk.
The extra memory gets used for disc buffers, so if the buffers are
allocated wisely it can improve disc access times.
The extra memory allows the use of a bigger BDOS than CP/M 2, with
features such as:
* Date/time stamps.
* Passwords.
* The System Control Block - an area of memory containing internal BDOS/CCP
settings. Some of these have their own BDOS calls to set/reset them;
others have to be accessed directly.

Similarly, the CCP is usually kept in memory rather than loaded in from
disc; it is also bigger than the CP/M 2 version and has features such as
conditional command execution, based on the return code from previous
programs [I improved this slightly in the Y2000 fixed version].

CP/M Plus also allows programs to remain resident in memory (RSXs) and
uses this to do I/O redirection and to implement the SAVE command.

: Is PCP/M really just menu driven CP/M+?

No. PCP/M-80 is a version of CP/M 2.2 (it reports version 2.8) with a few
of the extra BDOS calls from CP/M Plus, and a couple more of its own. It
requires a Z80 CPU (unlike the earlier versions which also work on the 8080)
and is designed so that it can be loaded from ROM.

: What does Z-System add?

Z-System was mainly for CP/M 2 systems. It consisted of a replacement CCP
(usually accompanied by a replacement BDOS) which could load additional
modules with more functionality. These usually included named directories
(ie, giving a drive/user area a title); flow control (conditional execution
of commands); execution of programs from within LBR files; etc.
There are a couple of Z-Systems for CP/M Plus, as well.

: Is MP/M an OS by it's self, or can it be added to CP/M+ or PCP/M?

MP/M is an OS. There are two versions for 8-bit systems - MP/M I and II.
They were written between CP/M 2.2 and Plus, and have some of the Plus
features and a further set all of their very own (nearly all the BDOS calls
numbered 128 and up).

: Can any of these multitask?

That's what MP/M does.

Lee Hart

2003-09-13 21:08:46 UTC

Post by Leon Howell
I would also like some detailed info about T/Maker III, supposedly a
combination word proceccor, database & spreadsheet

I have "T/Maker" for CP/M-80, and used it for years. T/Maker for PC-DOS
was called "T/Master". It doesn't appear that they marketed versions
with different suffixes (I, II, III etc.), but they did sell variations
of the program for other computers, giving it various names (REPO,
GemWriter, and Tsitsuga, to name a few).

TM (for short) is a very interesting program. It is perhaps the very
first "integrated" program that combined an editor, word processor,
spreadsheet, spellchecker, database, etc. into a single package that had
logical consistent rules throughout.

The heart of TM is a text editor. Like Wordstar, HTML etc. it has a rich
array of special strings of characters that you put in your text that
tell TM what you want done with the file. Then, there are dozens of
'report generators' that read your text file, perform the desired
operations, and produce an output text file that you can print, do
further editing on, etc.

If you need more information, manuals, a demo, or the software itself,
email me directly.

Post by Leon Howell
and "Write Hand Man" (I may not have the name write) a set of
memory resident accessories.

Yes, you have the name right. It was written by Alan Bomberger at Poor
Person Software. I considerably enhanced it for the Heath/Zenith
H8/H19/H89 family of computers. Others did the same thing for Kaypros,
Osbornes, etc.

WHM (for short) is basically a 'Sidekick' clone for CP/M-80 computers.
It is a little TSR (terminate and stay resident) program that creates a
tiny reserved space in memory (about 5k) and then lives in it.

The memory-resident portion of WHM watches all keyboard input for a
'hot' key. When you type it, even while any other program is running,
WHM saves the state of the BDOS, and displays a menu of little utility
programs. There are utilities for a notepad, phonebook with dialler,
calculator, disk directory, etc. When you're done using these utilities,
WHM restores the BDOS and resumes executing whatever program was
running.

So (for example) I can be running Wordstar, and realize I need your
address. I hit the BREAK key (the 'hot' key on my H89), and the WHM menu
pops up. Press 4 for the PHONEBOOK utility, and I get what looks like a
Rolodex file on the screen. Press the FIND key and your name, and it
jumps to the page with your name. Press the COPY key to copy the address
to a clipboard. Now press ESCAPE to exit WHM, and I'm right back in
Wordstar, right where I left off. Press the PASTE key and the string of
text with your address is 'typed' in automatically; Wordstar inserts it
just as if I typed it on the keyboard.

I have WHM too, in case anyone is interested.

Salle Arobase

2003-09-16 13:00:28 UTC

I have "T/Maker" for CP/M-80, and used it for years. (snip)
TM (for short) is a very interesting program. It is perhaps the very
first "integrated" program that combined an editor, word processor,
spreadsheet, spellchecker, database, etc. into a single package that had
logical consistent rules throughout.

Lee, why not find its author, and ask him if he would mind releasing
its source code, or making a CP/M-86 version?

(It is funny how somebody who loves a software (like you)
can make it interesting... You should set up a Web page
dealing with it and your tricks!)

Yours Sincerely,
"French Luser"

Lee Hart

2003-09-21 07:47:20 UTC